ID: nht70-1.32

DATE: 01/19/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert Brenner; NHTSA

TO: U. S. Technical Research Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter, dated November 11, 1969, in which you seek an interpretation as to how Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) 103 and 104 are applicable to cars equipped with right-hand drive or a central steering wheel.

For motor vehicles equipped with right-hand drive, the windshield areas to be defrosted and wiped by FMVSSs 103 and 104 respectively, are mirror images of those areas required for vehicles equipped with left-hand drive.

More information is required before a reply can be given on vehicles equipped with a central steering wheel. Defrosting and wiping areas requirements would naturally vary depending on the number and location of the front seat passenger seating positions in the vehicle equipped with a central steering wheel.

We trust that we have been of assistance to you.

ID: nht87-2.73

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/20/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Karl-Heinz Faber

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Karl-Heinz Faber Vice President Product Compliance and Service Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. P.O. Box 350 Montvale, NJ 07645

Dear Mr. Faber:

Thank you for your letter of April 16, 1987, concerning the requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. In particular, you asked for an interpretation of the requirements of @4.5.1 of the standard. I hope that the following discussion an swers your question.

@4.5.1 of Standard No. 208 provides that each vehicle with a crash deployed occupant protection system must have a label setting out a manufacturer's recommended schedule for the maintenance or replacement needed to keep the performance of the occupant p rotection system at the level required by the standard. @4.5.1 further provides that "the label shall be permanently affixed to the vehicle within the passenger compartment." You explained that at the present time, you placed the label for your air bag s ystem on the glove box door. You further explained that you placed all other important safety-related information, such as the certification label and tire information placard, on the latch post for the driver's door.

You stated that you want to relocate the air bag label from the glove box door to the latch post on the driver's side. You explained that one of the benefits of the new location is that it will establish a common location for the operator to quickly find important information. You said that the new location should remind vehicle operators of the replacement schedule since the tire pressure placard, which is routinely reviewed by the vehicle operator, is in the same location. Finally, you noted that deal ership service personnel will be alerted to the replacement schedule since "it is common practice for Service Writers to copy down the VIN from the certification label on the driver door latch post."

NHTSA agrees that a label placed on the driver's latch post would meet the requirements of @4. S. 1. The purpose of the location requirement is to place the replacement and maintenance schedule in a location that can be easily observed by the vehicle own er. Thus, the standard requires the label to be within the occupant compartment of the vehicle. The agency considers a label placed on thy latch post, which is inside the exterior surface of the vehicle and in a part of the physical structure that consti tutes occupant compartment, as meeting the location requirement. As you pointed out in your letter, the latch post is already used as a location for other important safety-related information about the vehicle.

If you have any further questions on this standard or need additional information, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

April 16, 1987

Ms. Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Subject: Request for Interpretation Concerning FMVSS-208 Dear Ms. Jones:

Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. requests an interpretation of FMVSS-208 "Occupant Crash Protection in Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, and Buses". Paragraph @4.5.1 Labeling and Driver's Manual Information provides that, "The (crash deployed occupant protection system maintenance or replacement) label shall be permanently affixed to the vehicle within the passenger compartment ..." (emphasis added)

Our request for interpretation concerns the phrase "within the passenger compartment". Currently, our replacement label for the airbag system is contained on the glove box door. At the same time, all other critical vehicle information, such as the "certi fication label" and "tire information placard", are placed on the driver door latch post.

We intend to relocate our airbag replacement label specified by FMVSS-208 to the same driver door latch post area from the glove box door. This relocation will result in:

1. A common location established on the vehicle for the operator to more quickly find important information.

2. Vehicle operators being more often reminded to take notice of the replacement label since the tire pressure placard is also in this location and routinely reviewed.

Ms. Erika Jones page 2 Request for Interpretation Concerning FMVSS-208

3. Dealership service personnel will be more quickly alerted to vehicles at or near their replacement date since it is common practice for Service Writers to copy down the VIN from the certification label on the driver door latch post.

We regard the driver door latch post area where the label will be placed as within the confines of the passenger compartment as required by the regulation. The label will be placed on the passenger compartment side of the outer door seal.

We would appreciate your confirmation of our location interpretation and thank you in advance for your response.

Sincerely,

ID: 24259.rbm

Mr. Ron Thompson
Fedex Express
2007 Corporate Avenue, 4th Floor
Memphis, TN 38132-5612

Dear Mr. Thompson:

This responds to your recent correspondence asking if your company, Fedex, may have the door locks on its airport vehicles disabled. In a subsequent conversation with Rebecca MacPherson, a Senior Counsel on my staff, you indicated that the vehicles are originally ordered as an incomplete chassis cab and are subject to final manufacturing customized to Fedex specifications. It would be part of this final manufacturing process to disable the existing door locks. You also reiterated that the vehicles, as manufactured, will not be operated anywhere other than airport property, and will not be licensed for street or highway use.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers a statute requiring that motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States or imported into the United States be manufactured so as to reduce the likelihood of motor vehicle crashes and of deaths and injuries when crashes do occur. We refer to that statute as the Vehicle Safety Act. It is codified at 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq.

The Vehicle Safety Act defines the term "motor vehicle" as "any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails." If a vehicle is a motor vehicle under the definition, it must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs). These standards specify safety performance requirements for motor vehicles and/or items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicles must certify compliance with all applicable safety standards and permanently apply a label to each vehicle stating that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSSs and providing the GVWR.

FMVSS No. 206, Door locks and door retention components, is one of these standards. S4.1.3 of the standard specifies that "[e]ach door shall be equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle." However, if the vehicles for which Fedex wishes to have the door locks disabled are not motor vehicles, there is no requirement that they meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 206, or any other Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

Whether we consider those vehicles to be motor vehicles depends on their use. We have long stated that vehicles such as airport runway vehicles, that are designed and sold solely for off-road use, are not considered motor vehicles under the Vehicle Safety Act, even if they are operationally capable of highway travel.

As noted in your letter and in the subsequent conversation with Ms. MacPherson, the Fedex vehicles in question will be customized by the final stage manufacturer for airport use, will remain on airport property, and will be used solely for transporting cargo to and from airplanes. Accordingly, we have determined that these vehicles would not be motor vehicles as defined in the Vehicle Safety Act, and you are not prohibited from having the final stage manufacturer disable the door locks on those vehicles.

Should you require any additional information or assistance, please contact Rebecca MacPherson, of my staff, (202) 366-2992 or at the address given above.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel
ref:595
d.7/16/02

ID: Weight_preemption_000160-3

Mr. David Hirsch
International Ecological Systems, Inc.
24599 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite B201
Malibu, CA 90265




Dear Mr. Hirsch:

This responds to your letter in which you asked what impact a proposed amendment to the Federal definition of low speed vehicle (LSV) would have on a State definition if the Federal proposal were published as a final rule. Your question is addressed below.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration established Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 500, Low speed vehicles, to ensure LSVs are equipped with an appropriate level of motor vehicle equipment for the purposes of safety. The agency defines an LSV as a 4-wheeled motor vehicle, except a truck, whose attainable speed in one mile is more than 20 miles per hour (mph) but less than 25 mph (49 CFR 571.3(b)). On December 8, 2003, the agency published a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend the definition of LSV, in part to limit the class to small vehicles (68 FR 68319). We proposed to limit the class of LSV to vehicles whose gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) is less than 1,134 kilograms (2,500 pounds). That proposal has not been published as a final rule.

In your letter you noted that California has a definition of LSV that limits the class to vehicles that have "an unladen weight of 1,800 pounds or less[. ]"CA Vehicle Code 385.5. You also noted that under California State law, an LSV operated or parked on a public roadway must comply with FMVSS No. 500. See, CA Vehicle Code 21253. You then asked what impact the proposed amendment to the Federal definition of LSV would have on the California law, if the proposed amendment were published as a final rule.

We note that if we issued our proposed amendment as a final rule, there would be an inconsistency in the definition of "low speed vehicle" between the California statute and the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Under the California statute, the weight limitation aspect of the definition of LSV would be dependent on the unladen weight of the vehicle, while under Federal law it would be dependent on GVWR. This would create the possibility of vehicles being considered different types of vehicles under State and Federal law.

Under 49 U.S.C. 30103(b), when a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect, a State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter. Different motor vehicle safety standards apply depending on how a vehicle is classified, i.e. , its vehicle type. If a State law classifies a vehicle differently than Federal law, preemption is an issue under 49 U.S.C. 30103(b) if: (1) the State classification results in the vehicle being subject to a State standard applicable to the same aspect of performance regulated by a FMVSS, and (2) the State standard is not identical to the FMVSS. In such an instance the State safety standard would be preempted.

If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Calamita at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:500
d.3/17/05

ID: 12073.ogm

Mr. Myungwon Park
Chief Manager
Daewoo Certification
Daewoo Motor Company

Dear Mr. Park:

This is in response to your facsimile transmission of June 25, 1996, in which Daewoo Motor Corporation (Daewoo) asks several questions regarding the design of a door panel. In particular, your letter seeks information relating to an armrest integrated in this door panel and the requirements of Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact.

Your facsimile transmission contained four questions and several drawings depicting the interior door panel in a side view and in section view. The questions are repeated below followed by the individual answers:

1. We would like to know whether or not the door trim would follow the regulations for armrest? (The armrest is integrated so we would like to know your view)
   
   

   The term "armrest" is not defined in Standard 201. The basic meaning of "armrest" in Webster's New Third International Dictionary is "a support for the arm." Therefore, the question of whether the door trim depicted in your drawings must meet the requirements for armrests contained in S3.5 of Standard 201 is dependent on whether the door trim is likely to be used by occupants to rest their arms during normal use of the vehicle. While the drawings provided in your facsimile transmission do not provide dimensions for the width of the horizontal sections of the door trim, it appears as if portions of this trim would be used by occupants to rest their arms. Therefore, these portions of the door trim would be required to meet S3.5 of Standard 201. The agency cannot, however, provide your company with an opinion regarding compliance of this particular design as NHTSA does not give prior approval to specific designs.
   
   

2. If question 1 is related to the regulations, where would the limit for the armrest at the door trim section?
   
   

   Standard 201 does not specify where an armrest must be located. Under the Standard an armrest must conform to one of the requirements found in S3.5.1. If a manufacturer chooses to comply with Standard 201 by conforming to the requirements of S3.5.1(c), an armrest must, when measured vertically in side elevation, provide at least 2 inches of continuous coverage in the pelvic impact area along at least 2 inches of its length.
   
   

3. Whether or not the groove section shown below would violate FMVSS 201?
   
   

   Provided that the armrest conforms either to S3.5.1.(a), (b) or (c), the groove section depicted in your drawings would not violate Standard 201. If your inquiry is directed specifically to the requirements of S3.5.1(c), it appears from the drawings provided with your request that in this instance the groove does not result in a discontinuity sufficient to violate the requirement that 2 inches of continuous vertical coverage be provided. A copy of an August 21, 1987, letter to Daihatsu Motor Co. which addresses this issue, is enclosed for your information.

4. What is the length, in mm the pelvic area in H-PT in the FMVSS 201 regulations.
   
   

   The pelvic impact area is defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3. The dimensions given in that definition have not yet been converted from english to metric. The pelvic impact area is that area of the door or body panel adjacent to any outboard designated seating position which is bounded by horizontal planes 7 inches above and 4 inches below the seating reference point and vertical transverse planes 8 inches forward and 2 inches rearward of the seating reference point. Therefore, the location of the pelvic impact area is dependent on the location of the seating reference point within the vehicle.
   
   

   The seating reference point is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as the unique design H-point, as specified in SAE J1100 (June 1984), which:
   
   
   

   1. Establishes the rearmost normal design driving or riding position of each designated seating position, which includes consideration of all modes of adjustment, horizontal, vertical, and tilt, in a vehicle;
   2. Has X, Y, and Z coordinates, as defined in SAE J1100 (June 1984), established relative to the designed vehicle structure;
   3. Simulates the position of the pivot center of the human torso and thigh;
      
      

      and

   4. Is the reference point employed to position the two-dimensional drafting template with the 95th percentile leg described in SAE J826 (May 1987), or, if the drafting template with the 95th percentile leg cannot be positioned in the seating position, is located with the seat in its most rearward adjustment position.

   
   
   

   Once this H point is located, the pelvic impact area may be located on a door or body panel. As the pelvic impact zone extends eight inches forward of the H-Point and two inches rearward from the H-Point, the pelvic impact area is 10 inches long.

I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at (202) 366-5253.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:201

d:12/17/96

ID: 1985-01.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/12/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nick Martz -- Regional Sales Manager, Isuzu Diesel of North America

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Nick Martz Regional Sales Manager Isuzu Diesel of North America 41169 Vincenti Court Novi, Michigan 48050

This responds to your letter asking about identification requirements applicable to water temperature, oil pressure and alternator instruments on bread delivery trucks. You asked whether the symbols specified by Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays, are required for such trucks and, if so, whether it is permissible to use transparent decals with the proper symbols on the lenses. You also asked whether waivers can be issued. The answers to your questions are provided below.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays, specifies requirements for the location, identification, and illumination of motor vehicle controls and displays. Water temperature, oil pressure and alternator instruments are displays. While the standard's requirements for controls apply to all trucks, the standard's requirements for displays are only applicable to trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating of less than 10,000 pounds. See section S5.

Assuming that your bread trucks do have a gross vehicle weight rating of less than 10,000 pounds, the instruments must be identified by the symbols specified by Standard No. 101. Section S5.2.3 provides in relevant part:

Except for informational readout displays, any display located within the passenger compartment and listed in column 1 of Table 2 that has a symbol designated in column 4, shall be identified by that symbol. Such display may, in addition be identified by the word or abbreviation shown in column 3. . . . Additional words or symbols may be used at the manufacturer's discretion for the purpose of clarity. The identification required or permitted by this section shall be placed on or adjacent to the display that it identifies. The identification of any display shall, under the conditions of S6, be visible to the driver and appear to the driver perceptually upright.

The displays described by your letter are conventional guages rather than informational readout displays. (Informational readout displays are defined by the standard to be displays using light-emitting diodes, liquid crystals, or other electro illuminating devices where one or more than one type of information may be displayed.) Table 2 specifies symbols for, among other displays, oil pressure gauges, coolant temperature gauges, and electrical charge gauges. Therefore, under S5.2.3, the displays must be identified by the specified symbols.

Standard No. 101 does not specify the nature of the material to be used in identifying displays, i.e., paint, decals, etc. Therefore, it is permissible to use decals.

You also asked whether waivers can be issued. In a telephone conversation with Edward Glancy of this office, you indicated that some trucks have been produced using words rather than symbols to identify the gauges discussed above. 49 CFR Part 556 sets forth procedures for petitioning for exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act due to the inconsequentiality of a noncompliance with a safety standard as it relates to motor vehicle safety. I have enclosed a copy of Part 556 for your convenience, as well as a copy of Standard No. 101.

Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosures

Lyall F. (Nick) Martz Zone Sales Manager Isuzu Diesel of North America 41169 Vincenti Court Novi, Michigan 48050-2689 (313) 474-8000

November 1, 1984 National Highway Traffic Safety Assoc. Office of Chief Counsel 400 7th Street S.W. Washington D.C. 20590

Re: Engine Instruments

Gentlemen:

We need your advice on water temperature, oil pressure, and alternator instruments in 1984 bread delivery trucks. We have had to change the above mentioned gauges since the original instruments in the vehicle are not compatible with our diesel engine.

The gauges we installed in the vehicle in an accessory panel are 2-inch dials with illumination lights.

The new oil pressure gauge manufactured by F. W. Murphy has a black dial with white numbers and pointer and is calibrated in PSI and K/CM3 but has no ISO symbol.

The water temperature gauge manufactured by VDO has the same type dial and is calibrated in Fo and Co. This gauge has an ISO symbol like the one used in SAE J-298 for industrial applications.

The alternator light has Alt. between the red 1/2" diameter lense and the light. This light is illuminated in the accessory position and crank position but goes out when the engine is running.

We have contacted V.D.O. and Murphy Mfg. and they informed us they do not make gauges with the FMVSS 101 symbol on them.

The problem we have is that the 96 vehicles with these gauges are now ready for delivery, but the missing ISO symbols will delay delivery to the customer. The gauge manufacturer says it will take 12 weeks to develop the proper symbol.

Is it necessary to use Automotive ISO symbols on E-350 delivery trucks, or can a waiver be issued? If symbols are necessary, is it acceptable to use transparent decals with the proper symbols on the lense?

I would appreciate your prompt attention and answer on this matter since time is critical.

Please call at your earliest opportunity.

Regards, Nick Martz Regional Sales Manager Enclosures

ID: nht87-1.80

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/27/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Paul Miller

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Paul Miller Arizona Bus Sales, Inc. P.O. Box 21226 Phoenix, AZ 85036 Dear Mr. Miller:

This responds to your April 14, 1987 letter to us asking about Federal requirements applicable to the sale of new school buses. You enclosed a copy of a bid from a school bus dealer offering to sell a 48-passenger activity bus to a school district. The b id describes options for changing the school bus paint and deleting "school options." You ask whether a bid with "an option to modify paint, and delete school bus options" accords with our school bus regulations.

The answer to your question depends on the nature of the "school options" which the bid makes nonobligatory. It is unclear from the bid whether the reference is to the school bus performance requirements mandated by our federal motor vehicle safety stand ards, or to the way the school bus is painted and marked. If the "school options" are the features required by Federal school bus safety standards, the answer to your question is no--i.e., the dealer may not sell a new school bus that fails to comply wit h those standards. On the other hand, Federal law does not prohibit school districts from changing the color or markings of their school buses. Instead, requirements for the identification of school buses are set by each State.

Our agency has two sets of regulations for school buses. The first set, issued under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, applies to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and includes our motor vehicle safety stand ards for school buses. Those standards set performance requirements that all new school buses must meet, including standards for passenger crash protection, emergency exits, rollover protection and fuel systems. The Safety Act requires manufacturers of s chool buses to certify that their vehicles comply with all applicable Federal school bus safety standards. The Act also requires school bus dealers to ensure that only complying school buses are sold. These requirements, set by federal law, apply to each school bus manufacturer and seller. A school bus dealer cannot elect whether to comply with those requirements and choose to sell a new activity bus that does not comply with our school bus safety standards.

Our second set of school bus "regulations," issued under the Highway Safety Act, include recommendations for identifying school buses. These recommendations are set forth in Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety (copy enclos ed). While the "standard" recommends that activity buses should be painted yellow and marked "School Bus," the decision to adopt its recommendations is made by each State. Therefore, questions you might have about activity bus identification should be ad dressed to your State officials.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact me if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W.

Washington,DC 20590 Attn: Erika Z. Jones

Ms. Jones:

Enclosed is a copy of a bid from an Arizona school Bus dealer offering a new bus for sale to a school district, with an option to modify paint, and delete school bus options.

In the past we have declined such invitations believing that such a sale would be in violation of federal law pertaining to the sale of school buses.

I would very much appreciate your opinion in this matter.

Sincerely ,

Paul Miller Sales Manager PM/md

Parker Unified District No. 27 P.O. Box 1089 Parker, Arizona 85344 Attn: Mr. Art Fox

April 10, 1987 Quotation No. B-748 Subject: Activity Bus

One Blue Bird All American Rear Engine 48 Passenger Activity Bus including all standard equipment and the following options:

Caterpillar 3208 Turbocharged 225 H.P. Diesel Engine with 5 Year/150,000 Mile Extended Warranty.

Allison MT643 4-speed Automatic Transmission with 3 Year/Unlimited Mileage Warranty.

Stemco front wheel seals

Rockwell 6" front and 8" rear brakes

Engine hour meter

Transmission temperature gauge

120 gallon fuel tank

11R x 22.5 Michelin Radial Tubeless Tires, including spare

Push-thru luggage compartment, 116 cu. ft. with locks

vandal locks on all doors

High headroom

Two 6" defroster fans

12,000 BTU driver's heater, 80,000 BTU center heater, 80,000 BTU rear heater Eight light warning system

AM/PM/Cassett/PA/Stereo Radio

12 rows of Blue Bird Activity Seats meeting FMVSS

Full width mud flaps Front and rear rubber fenders

5 lb. fire extinguisher

16 Unit first Aid Kit

Triangles and flares

Tan floor with plywood sub-floor

Interior parcel racks

Intermittent wipers

Tinted windows

Trans/Air Air Conditioning Model TA99 Dual System with two 15.6 compressors

full length luggage rack ducts with adjustable louvers, two 3-fan roof mounted condensors for a total of 106,000 BTU/hr

Price including transportation with tax to be added:

Option: Two-tone paint with school options deleted as required, Add:

MAKE YEAR MODEL W B. CA

THIS QUOTATION IS SUBJECT TO ACCEPTANCE WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM IT'S DATE.

ID: 86-2.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/16/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Clarence M. Ditlow

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of February 3, 1986, concerning the implementation of the automatic restraint requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. You expressed concern about the possible disconnection of detachable automatic belts by vehicle dealers and asked how the prohibitions of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act would apply to such a situation.

As you pointed out, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative items of safety equipment. The section provides that:

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

In interpreting section 108(a)(2)(A), the agency has said that commercial businesses are prohibited from knowingly removing, altering or degrading an item of safety equipment required by our standards. Thus, if a commercial business were to remove an automatic belt, it would be a clear violation of section 108(a)(2)(A). However, that situation is quite different from a commercial business demonstrating an aspect of performance required by a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard.

For some time, the agency has recognized that it is important to require automatic belts to have a mechanism to permit the release of the belt after a crash. Therefore, on April 25, 1974 (39 FR 14593), the agency adopted a provision in Standard No. 208 which requires all automatic belt systems to incorporate an emergency release mechanism. The agency has also recognized that it is important for consumers to know how such systems operate. The agency has fully expected vehicle dealers and others to play a helpful role in providing that information to the consumer. For example, in November (Illegible Word) NHTSA amended Standard No. 208 to permit the use of alternative types of emergency releases in automatic belts. In adopting that amendment, the agency emphasized that it did not believe that "the use of alternative release mechanisms will cause serious occupant egress problems if manufacturers take precautions to instruct vehicle owners how the systems work through the owner's manual and through their dealers." (43 FR 52494)

In addition to demonstrating how to get out of the automatic safety belt in an emergency, dealers will also have to show their customers how to gain access to the center seating position in a bench seat car equipped with automatic safety belts. Thus, given the need to educate the public about how the automatic restraint system functions, we do not consider it to be a violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) for a dealer to unbuckle or help consumers unbuckle their automatic safety belts. Hence, we cannot issue the legal interpretation you requested. We would expect that when dealers explain how an automatic belt system operates, they will also emphasize the important safety benefits of the automatic belts.

SINCERELY,

February 6, 1986

Erika Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Ms. Jones:

In just six months, the auto industry must implement the single most important safety standard ever issued by the federal government -- the passive restraint requirement of FMVSS 208. How the industry carries out implementation will in large part determine the ultimate effectiveness of the standard. If the manufacturers make a good faith effort to comply with well-designed passive restraint systems, then at least 9,000 lives will be saved and 100,000 serious injuries prevented each year after full implementation.

Unfortunately, it appears that the world's largest auto maker, General Motors, will attempt to undermine this lifesaving standard by installing cumbersome automatic seat belts with window shade retractors that can be detached so easily they will encourage disconnection by dealers and consumers. [The GM automatic belt has a buckle to disconnect it with the window shade retractor conveniently rolling the loose belt up into the retractor.] GM is introducing this system over the express objections of safety groups and the criticism of the Supreme Court which asked in its unanimous decision overturning DOT's revocation of the passive restraint standard whether such automatic belt disconnects should be outlawed. Moreover, GM's easy-to-release but hard-to-wear automatic belts are particularly reprehensible given the fact that a smaller auto manufacturer, Volkswagen, has sold for the past ten years an automatic belt that is so easy to use that consumers don't want to disconnect it. DOT's own studies of the VW "easy rider" automatic belt show usage of over 80%. In contrast, GM's "hard rider" automatic belt is unlikely to obtain more than 15% usage.

Section 108 (a) (2) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits any dealer from "knowingly [rendering] inoperative, in whole or in part, any device . . . installed . . . in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard." The Center believes this clearly prohibits dealers from unbuckling or helping consumers to unbuckle their automatic seat belts. If they do so, they are liable for a $ 1,000 fine per car under Section 109 of the Act. Since the GM hard rider automatic belts are so cumbersome yet easy to disconnect, many GM dealers are likely to disconnect the automatic belts to better sell the cars in view of the competition from other manufacturers who have opted for easy rider automatic belts.

Accordingly, the Center petitions the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to issue an interpretive legal opinion prior to the beginning of the 1987 model year that it is illegal for dealers to disconnect or help consumers to disconnect automatic belts under Section 108 of the Act and that violating dealers are subject to a $ 1,000 per vehicle fine.

Clarence M. Ditlow III Executive Director

cc: Sen. John Danforth Rep. Tim Wirth

ID: 86-3.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/29/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Greg Burns -- Quality Manager, Sierracin/TransTech

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Greg Burns Quality Manager Sierracin/TransTech 12780 San Fernando Road Sylmar, CA 91342

Thank you for your letter of March 7, 1986, to Edward Jettner of this agency. Your letter was referred to this office for reply. You asked about the effect of the certification requirements of Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, on a product you are planning to manufacture. I hope the following discussion answers your questions.

You described your product as an aftermarket personal security speciality glazing for automotive use. The glazing would be manufactured by adding a special plastic to the interior surface of a piece of new glazing. You explained that you are having testing conducted on your product and believe that it will pass all of the requirements set for glass-plastic glazing (item AS-14) in Standard No. 205. Your specific question concerns how the glazing is to be marked in accordance with S6 of the standard.

You explained that a new item of glazing is sent to you by an original equipment glazing manufacturer, who has certified the glazing as complying with the standard and placed the necessary markings, required by S6 of the standard, on the glazing. You asked whether you should obliterate the OEM markings through sandblasting or other means and then apply your own identification or whether you should retain the OEM marking and add additional information to indicate that the glazing has been modified.

S6.1 of Standard No. 205 requires prime glazing manufacturers to mark glazing materials in accordance with section 6 of ANS Z-26. S6.1 further defines a prime glazing manufacturer as one "who fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material." In general, an item of glazing has only one prime glazing manufacturer, since usually one manufacturer performs the fabrication, lamination, or tempering of the glazing material. However, in the case of your product, we would consider both the original manufacturer of the glazing and your company, which laminates a plastic material to the glazing, to be prime glazing manufacturers. Both companies are performing a fundamental manufacturing operation, such as fabricating, laminating, or tempering, necessary to produce a completed item of glazing material, as compared to a situation where a company is performing a minor finishing operation, such as polishing, to an item of glazing that is fabricated, laminated or tempered by another company.

As you pointed out in your letter, having two identifying marks on one item of glazing could lead to potential confusion as to which mark is correct. One of the purposes of the certification requirement is to assist in identifying the responsible manufacturer for the purposes of defect and noncompliance recall campaigns. Thus, in the case of your product, the agency believes that it is important that both prime glazing manufacturers be identified on the glazing since, for example, there could be a noncompliance in the original glazing sent to you or there could be a noncompliance in the glazing as modified by your company. To avoid potential confusion about what item number applies to your finished product, we agree that adding wording to your marking indicating that the original glazing has been modified from one AS item to another will help avoid confusion.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Edward Jettner TQC-86-037 Safety Glazing Standards 7 March 1986 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street Washington, D. C. 20950

Dear Mr. Jettner;

As you may be aware of, we at Sierracin/TransTech are preparing to market an aftermarket personal security specialty glazing for automotive use. The glazing would be manufactured utilizing a OEM assembly (windshield, sidelight, etc.) with the subsequent application of a special plastic to the interior surface.

We are nearing the completion of FMVSS No. 205 testing through Industrial Testing Laboratories (Berkeley, CA), and feel confident that our design will pass all tests for the AS-14 item designation of that standard. (Although we will be using the current 1983 revision to Z-26.1 instead of the obsolete 1977 revision which includes supplement .la from 1980.)

During initial conversations with Mr. Armond Cardarelli (Director, Safety Equipment Services, American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators) in preparation for AAMVA approvals processing, the subject of assembly identification came up. As you know, OEM assemblies, when furnished in low quantities such as we would normally use, incorporate the OEM item designation (AS-1, AS-2, etc.). Mr. Cardarelli's justifiable concern was that our subsequent reidentification after our manufacturing process would cause confusion because of the conflicting item designations (AS-14 vs. AS-1/2/etc.), and he suggested that I contact you in writing to determine the proper direction in which to proceed.

As I see it, we have two options:

1) Obliterate the OEM item designation through sand-blast or other means. Thereafter we would apply our own identification.

- or -

2) Retain the OEM type designation, and add additional identification to indicate "modification" as per the following example:

(Please insert graphics)

I would appreciate your letting me know which of these two alternatives you feel would be most appropriate. If possible, we would prefer the acceptance of option two (2). If you have an alternate method that you feel would be more suitable, please contact me at the above address.

If you have any questions about this matter, please don't hesitate to call. I appreciate your participation in this, and look forward to your reply.

Sincerely yours,

Greg Burns Quality Manager

ID: nht88-1.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/07/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Koji Tokunaga -- Manager, Engineering, Isuzu Motors America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 5/6/91 letter from John Mayeda to NHTSA (OCC6034); 7/1/91 letter from Paul J. Rice to John Mayeda (A38; Std. 101); 6/4/87 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Robert J. Heath; 9/21/89 letter from Stephen P. Wood to Jim Bowen

TEXT:

Mr. Koji Tokunaga Manager, Engineering Isuzu Motors America, Inc. 21415 Civic Center Drive Southfield, MI 48076-3969

This responds to your letter asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays, as amended by a final rule published in the FEDERAL REGISTER (52 FR 3244) on February 3, 1987. We apologize for the delay in our response. You described a proposed design for a radio and asked whether the requirements of section @5.a.s would apply to the source of illumination for the radio and, if so, whether your design would meet those requirements. The following represents our opinion base d on the facts provided in your letter.

As discussed below, the requirements of section @5.3.5 would apply to the source of illumination for your planned radio. Your current design would meet the requirements of that section. You described your planned radio as follows:

In the case of the radio to be installed on our vehicle, radio display is automatically illuminated when radio switch is turned "on." Likewise, when the switch is turned "off,' this display is automatically extinguished. This illumination is a single int ensity, but the intensity is not "barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions."

The current language of section @5.3.5, which reflects an amendment made by a final rule published in the FEDERAL REGISTER (52 FR 33416) on September 3, 1987, is as follows:

@5.3.5 Any source of illumination within the passenger compartment which is forward of a transverse vertical plane 4.35 inch (110.6 mm) reward of the manikin "H" point with the driver's seat in its rearmost driving position, which is not used for the con trols and displays regulated by this standard, which is not a telltale, and which is capable of being illuminated while the vehicle is in motion, shall have either (1) light intensity which is manually or automatically adjustable to provide at least two levels of brightness, (2) a single intensity that is barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions, or (3) a means of being turned off. This requirement does not apply to buses that are normally operated with the passe nger compartment illuminated.

The first issue raised by your letter is whether section @5.3.5 would apply to your proposed design. The answer to that question is yes. You suggested that the section might not apply, since "display illumination turns 'on' or 'off' simultaneously with t he 'on' or 'off' operation of radio switch irrespective of vehicle motion." However, section @5.3.5's limitation of applicability to sources of illumination which are "capable of being illuminated while the vehicle is in motion" does not refer to illumin ations which are provided only when the vehicle is in motion but instead incorporates all sources of illumination which are "capable" of being illuminated while the vehicle is in motion.

The second issue raised by your letter is whether your proposed design meets the requirements of section @5.3.5. You suggested that the "off" switch of the radio would be "a means of being turned off," under that section. We agree with your suggested int erpretation. Section @5.a.5 requires that the "source of illumination" have either (1) light intensity which is manually or automatically adjustable to provide at "least two levels of brightness, (2) a single intensity that is barely discernible to a dri ver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions, or (3) a means of being turned off. As discussed in the preamble to the February 3, 1987 final rule, the purpose of providing section @5.3.5's three options was to meet concerns raised by commenters , while maintaining essential limits on glare. Although a driver may use the radio while driving at night, he or she will have the means to remove the radio as a source of glare by turning the radio off. In our view, this meets section @5.3.5's third opt ion. Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

The purpose of this letter is to seek the interpretation of the NHTSA authorities on the FMVSS 101 Controls and Displays amended in the Federal Register dated February 3, 1987.

In the case of the radio to be installed on our vehicle, radio display is automatically illuminated when radio switch is turned "on." Likewise, when the switch is turned "off," this display is automatically extinguished. This illumination is a single int ensity, but the intensity is not "barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions."

1. Said Federal Register states that new section @5.3.5 applied only to those sources of illumination which are capable of being illuminated while the vehicle is in motion. For above radio, display illumination turns "on" or "off" simultaneously with the "on" or "off" operation of radio switch irrespective of vehicle motion. Therefore, we think this section is not applicable to our case. Is our opinion correct?

2. If @5.3.5 should apply to the illumination of above radio, we think the "off" switch of the radio corresponds to "a means of being turned off" stated in the section. That is, the "on" or "off" switch of this radio is not the switch which controls only the illumination of the radio display, but we think it is a means of turning off the illumination source stated in this section. Is our opinion correct? We would high appreciate your prompt reply.

Sincerely yours,

Koji Tokunaga Manager, Engineering

jh

pc: Mr. Fukuhara, Isuzu Motors, Japan