ID: nht89-3.54

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/13/89

FROM: JIM EVANS -- QUALITY CONTROL DEPT., THE BARGMAN COMPANY

TO: STEVEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 02-26-90 TO JIM EVANS, THE BARGMAN CO., FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD, NHTSA; (REDBOOK) A35; VSA 103(D); STD. 108

TEXT: My company manufactures lighting products for the recreational vehicle industry and we are in need of an interpretation of the rules in FMVSS 108 concerning the use of reflex reflectors on the rear of vehicles. I can find in this standard where two (2) red reflex reflectors are required on the rear of a vehicle (Tables I, II, III, IV) but I cannot find anything in the standard that would prohibit the use of any other color reflectors that could be used in addition to the red reflectors.

Specifically, we manufacture a red taillight lens that has a reflex reflector area around the outer edge of the lens. The stop, turn and tail, as well as the reflex functions all exceed the minimum requirements for these functions.

One of our customers has asked us to mold this same lens in yellow so that it could be used for the turn signal function. It would be mounted side by side with the red unit which would now be used for only stop and tail functions. The problem now arise s where both the yellow and red lens would be visable to traffic approaching from the rear. I checked with a local State Police Post here in Michigan, and they were able to find a section in the State Code that clearly states that reflectors mounted on the rear of a vehicle shall reflect a red color (I am enclosing a copy of this section for your reference). As I stated in my opening paragraph, I cannot find an equivalent ruling in the National standard. I am hoping that your office may have already addressed this problem in the past and that a ruling is already in effect.

My questions are two-fold: First, is it legal to put any other color reflector on the rear of a vehicle as long as the red reflectors are also present? Secondly, if in fact this situation is illegal (which I believe it probably is), could the National st andard be amended to show this fact and eliminate future confusion? Whichever way is correct, I would like to request a written statement to that effect as well as any supporting documentation for the ruling.

I am looking forward to hearing from you as soon as possible so that we can clear this matter up once and for all. Thank you.

Enclosure

(d) On every trailer or semitrailer having a gross weight in excess of 3,000 pounds:

On the front, 2 clearance lamps, 1 at each side.

On each side, 2 side marker lamps, 1 at or near the front and 1 at or near the rear.

On each side, 2 reflectors, 1 at or near the front and 1 at or near the rear.

On the rear, 2 clearance lamps, 1 at each side, also 2 reflectos, 1 at each side, and 1 stop light.

(e) On every poletrailer:

On each side, 1 side marker lamp and 1 clearance lamp which may be in combination, to show to the front, side or rear.

On the rear of the poletrailer or load, 2 reflectors, 1 on each side.

(f) On every trailer or semitrailer weighing 3,000 pounds gross or less:

On the rear, 2 reflectors, 1 on each side if any trailer or semitrailer is so loaded or is of such dimensions as to obscure the stop light on the towing vehicle, then such vehicle shall (Illegible Words) with 1 stop light

(g) When operated on the highway, every vehicle which has a maximum potential speed of 25 miles an hour implement of husbandry, farm tractor or special mobile equipment shall be identified with a reflective device as follows:

An equilateral triangle in shape, at least 16 inches wide at the base and at least 14 inches in height, with a dark red border, at least 1 3/4 inches wide of highly reflective beaded material;

A center triangle, at least 12 1/4 inches on each side of yellow orange fluorescent materials.

The device shall be mounted on the rear of the vehicle, broad base down, not less than 3 feet not more than 5 feet above the ground and as near the center of the vehicle as possible. The use of this reflective device is restricted to use on slow movi ng vehicles specified in this section, and use of such reflective device on any other type of vehicle or stationary object on the highway is prohibited.

On the rear, at each side, red reflectors or reflectorized material visible from all distances within 500 to 50 feet to the rear when directly in front of lawful upper beams of headlamps.

Am. 1988, Act 383.

CI 257.689 Clearance and marker lamps and reflectors; color. [MSA 9.2389]

Sec. 689. (a) Front clearance lamps and those marker lamps and reflectors mounted on the front or on the side near the front of a vehicle shall display or reflect an amber color.

(b) Rear clearance lamps and those marker lamps and reflectors mounted on the rear or on the sides near the rear of a vehicle shall display or reflect a red color.

(c) All lighting devices and reflectors mounted on the rear of any vehicle shall display or reflect a red color, except the stop light or other signal device, which may be red or amber, and except that the light illuminating the license plate-shall be white.

CI 257.690 Same; mounting [MSA 9.2390]

Sec. 690. (1) Reflectors shall be mounted at a height not less than 15 inches and not higher than 60 inches above the ground on which the vehicle stands, except that if the highest part of the permanent structure of the vehicle is less than 15 inches , the reflector at such point shall be mounted as high as that part of the permanent structure will permit.

(2) The rear reflectors on a pole-trailer may be mounted on each side of the bolster or load.

(3) Any required red reflector on the rear of a vehicle may be incorporated with the tail lamp, but such reflector shall meet all the other reflector requirements of this chapter.

(4) Clearance lamps shall be mounted on the permanent structure of the vehicle in such a manner as to indicate its extreme width and as near the top thereof as practicable. Clearance lamps and side marker lamps may be mounted in combination if illumi nation is given as required herein with reference to both.

Am. 1988, Act 383.

CI 257.691 Same; visibility. [MSA 9.2391]

Sec. 691. (a) Every reflector upon any vehicle referred to in section 689 of this chapter shall be of such size and characteristics and so maintained as to be readily visible at nighttime from all distances within 500 to 50 feet from the vehicle when directly in front of lawful upper beams of headlamps. Reflectors required to be mounted on the sides of the vehicle shall reflect the required color of light to the sides, and those mounted on the rear shall reflect a red color to the rear.

(b) Front and rear clearance lamps shall be capable of being seen and distinguished under normal atmospheric conditions at the times lights are required at a distance of 500 feet from the front and rear, respectively, of the vehicle.

(c) Side marker lamps shall be capable of being seen and distinguished under normal atmospheric conditions at the times lights are required at a distance of 500 feet from the side of the vehicle on which mounted.

CI 257.692 Combination vehicles obstructed lights. [MSA 9.2392]

Sec. 692. Whenever motor and other vehicles are operated in combination during the time that lights are required, any lamp (except tail lamps) need not be lighted which, by reason of its location on a vehicle of the combination, would be obscured by another vehicle of the combination, but this shall not affect the requirement that lighted clearance lamps be displayed on the front of the foremost vehicle required to have clearance lamps, nor that all lights required on the rear of the rearmost vehicl e of any combination shall be lighted.

ID: 86-4.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/18/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Koji Tokunaga

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

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

Dear Mr. Tokunaga:

Thank you for your letter of December 19, 1985, to former Chief Counsel Prank Berndt, asking several questions about how the requirements of Standards No. 207, Seating Systems, 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and 210, Seat Belt Assembly Achorages, apply to an airsuspension truck seat equipped with a safety belt and a tether belt. The diagrams you enclosed with your letter show that one end of the tether belt is connected to the floor behind the seat and the other end is connected to the frame of the air suspension seat. The safety belt is also connected to the frame of the seat. I regret the delay in our response and hope the following discussion answers your questions.

You first asked about which portion of the system is considered the safety belt anchorage for the purpose of Standard No. 210. S3 of the standard defines the term "seat belt anchorage" as "the provision for transferring seat belt assembly loads to the vehicle structure." Since, according to the diagram enclosed with your letter, the safety belt is directly attached to the seat, we would consider the attachment point on the seat to be the anchorage. It is that attachment point that transfers the seat belt load to the vehicle structure. Although not specifically discussed in your letter, we believe that the primary purpose of the tether belt is to hold the seat in position during a crash rather than to transfer the safety belt loads to the vehicle structure.

You next asked whether S4.2(c) of Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, would apply to the seat since the safety belt is secured to the seat. The answer is yes, S4.2(c) would apply. S4.2(c) sets requirements for any seat in which "a seat belt assembly is attached to the seat."

In your third question, you asked whether the seat would have to be tested to the requirements of Standard No. 210 if it meets the requirements of S4.2(c) of Standard No. 207. The seat must meet the requirement of S4.2(c) of Standard No. 207 and the seat belt anchorages must separately meet the requirements of Standard No. 210. As a manufacturer, your responsibility is to certify that the seat and safety belt anchorages will meet each of those requirements. You may not have to conduct two separate tests if you can demonstrate compliance to both sets of requirements when the seat and seat belt anchorage are tested in accordance with S4.2(c) of Standard No. 207.

In your fourth question, you asked whether the struts specified in S5.1.1 of Standard No. 207 can be used in testing the system. S5.1.1 provides that if "the seat back and the seat bench are attached to the vehicle by the same attachments," a strut can be secured on each side of the side for the purposes of securing a rigid crossmember used in loading the seat. In the case of your seat, the seat back and the seat bench are attached to the vehicle by the same attachments and thus use of the struts is permitted.

You then asked how the center of gravity of the seat is to be determined for the purpose of the test. You asked whether you are to determine the center of gravity of the entire system, including the seat stand with the air suspension and slide mechanism. In a July 14, 1983 letter to Mack Trucks, Inc., NHTSA addressed the issue of how to apply the loading required by Standard No. 207 to a heavy-duty truck seat which, as with yours, includes a suspension system and is mounted on a pedestal-like structure.

In its letter, Mack explained that it tests its seat in a two step process. First, the seat supplier for Mack mounts the seat cushion and the seat back on a rigid structure and tests the seat to the performance requirements of Standard No. 207 by applying 20 times the weight of the seat cushion and seat frame to the seat. Then, Mack conducts a separate test of the seat cushion and seat back with those components mounted on the pedestal used in its trucks. In that test, Mack subjects those components to 20 times the weight of the seat back, seat cushion and pedestal applied at the center of gravity of the entire seat system (seat back, seat cushion, and pedestal).

In responding to Mack, NHTSA said that a manufacturer can separately test the seat in the manner followed by Mack. Thus, a manufacturer can conduct one test of the upper section of the seat by applying 20 times the weight of those components to the upper section and then separately test the seat, as anchored to the vehicle floor, by applying 20 times the weight of the entire seat, including the pedestal, at the center of gravity of the entire seat.

In your sixth and final question, you asked whether the tether belt would have to meet the seat belt assembly requirements of Standard No. 209. S3 of Standard No. 209 defines, in part, a seat belt assembly as "any strap, webbing, or similar device designed to secure a person in a motor vehicle to mitigate the results of any accident. . . ." Since your tether belt is not designed to restrain an occupant, it would not be required to meet the requirements of Standard No. 209.

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

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

DET-85-258

December 19, 1985

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Subject: Test Procedures for Seat Belt With Tether Belt

Regarding the compliance with the requirements of FMVSS 207 and 210, we would request you to answer the following questions and provide necessary information on a seat belt with tether belt, which is used on an airsuspension truck seat. Please see Fig. 1 on the next page for the outline of the system.

1. We think that (1) the securing on the floor end or the tether belt, (2) the tether belt itself, and (3) the area where the seat belt and tether belt are together secured to the seat constitute the seat belt anchorage as defined in FMVSS 270 S3. Is this correct?

2. Since the seat belt is secured to the seat together with the tether belt, we think FMVSS 207 S4.2(c) is applicable. Is this understanding correct?

3. If your answer to the question 2 above is yes, there seems to be no necessity for testing the system separately to FMVSS 210 S4.2 if the system meets the requirements or FMVSS 207 S4.2(c). Is this correct?

4. If your answer to the question 2 above is yes, is the use of the struts mentioned in FMVSS 207 S5.1.1 permitted in testing the system? Then, how is the center of gravity or the seat determined? Is it the center or gravity or the entire system including the seat stand which incorporates the suspension and slide mechanisms?

5. If the center of gravity is to be determined as in para. 4 above, this center exists inside the suspension mechanism as shown in Fig. 2, and thus the crossmember for the struts cannot be installed.

Is there any established regulation or procedure which specifies what load is to be applied where? If no, please advise what action we are to take.

6. It is our understanding that the tether belt is to meet the requirements or FMVSS 209 as linked to the seat belt. Is this understanding correct?

Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely yours,

Koji Tokunaga Manager, Engineering

jj

ID: Ms Buley

ID: nht72-3.30

DATE: 09/08/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Auto Top, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 25, 1972, concerning the application of section S4.3 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207 to a folding dinette seat manufactured by your company for use in recreational vehicles.

The seat you describe has a back that folds flat to make a bed. A seat back that travels through such a large arc does not fall within the limited exceptions provided in S4.3 for a "back that is adjustable only for the comfort of its occupants," and it must therefore be equipped with a restraining device conforming to S4.3. The quoted language applies to the type of seat whose back is adjustable through a few degrees of arc to provide a variety of riding positions for persons of different sizes and postures. A seat back that folds to the point where it no longer restrains the longitudinal motion of the occupant is required to have a device that prevents it from assuming that position accidentally.

ID: nht75-4.31

DATE: 11/21/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; G. G. Mannella for James B. Gregory; NHTSA

TO: Ford Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of November 11, 1975, requesting confirmation that a 1976 Ford Motor Company "deluxe continuous-loop seat belt system" satisfies the requirements of Section 7.1.1 of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection.

Section 7.1.1 requires adjustment of the lap belt portion of a front outboard seat belt assembly "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 belt 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.

In the NHTSA's September 25, 1972, letter to Renault to which you refer, the level of friction in the tongue is discussed and our position is stated that it must have a sufficiently low level to qualify the lap belt portion as "automatically adjustable." In your recent demonstration of the tongue frictions in the Ford 1976 "standard" and "deluxe" continuous loop seat belt systems to NHTSA personnel, we saw no evidence of design deficiency in limited use of those systems.

The other restriction concerns the use of manual and automatic tension relieving devices on the upper portion of continuous loop systems. In our letters of March 9, 1973, and March 27, 1975 (to General Motors), June 13, 1975 (to Chrysler Corporation), and September 5, 1975 (to Takata-Kojyo), the NHTSA has limited the use of tension relieving devices to the upper torso portion of seat belt assemblies that have "an individually adjustable lap belt." It is our view that the 1976 Ford deluxe continuous loop system does not have "an individually adjustable lap belt" within the meaning of Standard No. 208. In this system slack which is introduced into the continuous loop by the "window shade" tension relief device on the upper retractor is directly transferred to the lap belt, thus increasing the risk of submarining if a crash should occur. I would like to point out that issues related to tension relief devices are, however, still outstanding in an NHTSA proposal (Docket 74-32, Notice 1).

I am enclosing a report on "Comfort and Convenience Analysis of Advanced Restraint Systems" of August 1975. This study, conducted by the NHTSA Safety Research Laboratory on a number of different safety belt designs concludes that: "Several aspects of the systems caused difficulties or confusion, but the single-loop 'window-shade' feature most frequently produced problems." In light of our mutual desire to improve safety belt usage levels, I should also like to again recommend to your attention the results of the earlier NHTSA sponsored study "Sources and Remedies for Restraint System Discomfort and Inconveniences" by Man Factors, Inc., that I sent to your company in January 1975.

SINCERELY,

Ford Motor Company

November 11, 1975

Dr. James B. Gregory Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Request for Interpretation of FMVSS 208 with regard to the Performance Requirements for a 1976 Ford Motor Company Deluxe Continuous-Loop Seat Belt System

Reference 1: September 25, 1972 letter from Richard B. Dyson (NHTSA) to Mr. Francois Louis (Renault, Inc.)

Reference 2: March 27, 1975 letter from Robert L. Carter (NHTSA) to David E. Martin (General Motors)

On October 23, 1975 we met with you and members of your staff to review and discuss the subject deluxe seat belt system which is contained on the driver side of one of the two 1975 Pinto vehicles that we left for your further review. This continuous-loop belt system incorporates many customer convenience and comfort features which we believe would result in increased belt usage. We also believe we have interpreted correctly the performance requirements of Section 7.1.1 of Standard 208 in light of the two subject references. However, Ford would appreciate receiving assurance that the Administration agrees with our interpretation.

It is the interpretation of the Ford Motor Company, based on the referenced documents, that we as a manufacturer have designed the subject seat belt system to provide:

1. Excellent fit of the lap strap with "automatic adjustment" while donning, due to the constant stored position of the free sliding tongue as specified in Reference 1, which states:

"The characteristic to be avoided is the tendency of the buckle to trap an excessive amount of webbing on the lap belt side of the buckle. This tendency is overcome . . . if the buckle slides down of its own weight while the assembly is stored on the B-pillar so that the next occupant must lengthen the lap belt as he fastens the buckle".

2. A belt system having a tension reliever which, during normal usage of the belt system, will not result in "excessive slack" in the lap strap.

In most instances an intentional, overt act on the part of the user is required to transfer any slack from the shoulder strap to the lap strap without cancelling the tension reliever. Such cancelling permits the retractor spring to "automatically adjust" the lap strap. However, in the unlikely event that occupant action would force "excessive slack" into the lap strap without cancellation of the tension reliever, it would be expected that a conscientious user of seat belts would recognize that he has loosened the lap strap and would readjust the belt system by a simple manual cancellation of the tension reliever.

Ford will provide on the visor sleeve and in the owner's manual instructions to customers indicating the possibility of a loose lap strap and what to do to correct it, such as:

Avoid a loose lap strap; if for any reason you have created slack in your lap strap, lean forward to cancel the tension reliever which will permit the shoulder strap retractor spring to snug the lap strap automatically. Your normal motions while driving will then again activate the tension reliever.

Hence, our belt system with the tension reliever, if used as instructed ("during normal usage"), will, as specified in Reference 2, "automatically adjust the tension of the lap belt portion to prevent excessive belt slack".

Ford also emphasizes that the free-sliding tongue overcomes many customer inconvenience items found in other systems by providing:

* convenient and consistently positioned parking of the tongue for easy access,

* freedom of movement without lock-up to extend webbing during donning due to the free sliding action,

* improved stowage of webbing since the retractor spring does not have to lift the tongue,

* no interference with seat adjustment.

An early response to this letter is urgently requested since this improved belt system is planned for production as a running change during the 1976 model year.

R. E. KIMBALL FOR

J. C. Eckhold Director Automotive Safety Office

ID: 005890Campbelllabel

Mr. David E. Campbell
David Campbell & Associates, Inc.
PO Box 402
Westfield Center, OH  44251-0402

Dear Mr. Campbell:

This responds to your e-mail to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance and your follow-up phone conversation with Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff. You inquired as to whether your client may make certain modifications to the warning label text required under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child restraint systems. As explained below, one but not all of the modifications you suggest is permitted.

For a belt-positioning booster seat such as that manufactured by your client, S5.5.2(g) of FMVSS No. 213 requires the statement:

• Use only the vehicle’s lap and shoulder belt system when restraining the child in this booster seat

to be followed directly by the statement:

• Secure this child restraint with a vehicle belt.

You expressed concern that listing the statements as required on a belt-positioning booster seat could be confusing. You then proposed a single bullet point to replace the two listed above, which would read as follows:

Secure child in this child restraint with a vehicle lap and shoulder belt as specified in the vehicle manufacturer’s instructions.

You stated that you believe that the proposed statement avoids any confusion about how a child should be secured.

We agree that a belt-positioning booster seat is weighted down by the child occupant and that the booster is not secured directly to the vehicle with the vehicle’s belt system. The warning statement, “Secure this child restraint with a vehicle belt” is thus not appropriate for a belt-positioning booster. As such, manufacturers of belt-positioning booster do not need to include the phrase in the labeling. Further, we intend to address this issue in future rulemaking.

However, we do not agree that your replacement language would be an acceptable alternative. S5.5 of Standard 213 requires child restraints to be permanently labeled with certain information, including specific statements provided in quotations in the standard. The agency’s longstanding position is that the wording on child restraint labels must be as specified in S5.5, with very limited exceptions. We have permitted certain minor variations that clarified text and did not make any substantive change to the meaning of the warning specified for the label. (See e.g., Letter to Ford Motor Company, changing “instructions” to the “instruction” to clarify that a restraint had only a single instruction for a particular feature. December 18, 1980; copy enclosed.) However, we generally have taken a strict view that the wording required by FMVSS No. 213 may not be altered.

The rewording you have suggested is not a minor clarification, and in fact, may potentially lead to confusion. Your label instructs the consumer to refer to “the vehicle manufacturer’s instructions” to determine how a child should be properly secured in the child restraint. However, vehicle manufacturers are not required under the Federal standards to provide information on the proper installation of a child in a child restraint. It is the child restraint manufacturer that is required to provide instructions on how to properly restrain a child in its restraint systems. For the reasons stated above, the labeling alternative you suggest is not acceptable.

If you have any further questions, please call Mr. Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-0536.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman

Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:213

d.11/12/04

ID: aiam4437

"Dear Mr. Cole: This responds to your letter asking about the tes procedures of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. I regret the delay in responding. In your letter, you explained that the National Van Conversion Association (NVCA) gathers samples of materials used for vehicle floor coverings, seat covers, etc., in van conversions to determine the compliance of the material with Standard No. 302. In your test program, you have found that many samples do not appear to comply. You said that a closer look at the conditions under which these samples were tested revealed that use of support wires affected whether many materials passed or failed the standard's test. You ask for clarification as to when support wires are used in Standard No. 302 testing. The conditions and procedures under which Standard No. 302 compliance testing is conducted using support wires are stated in paragraphs S5.1.3 and S5.3(a) of the standard. Basically, these two paragraphs specify, respectively, that support wires are used: (1) when testing a specimen 'that softens and bends at the flaming end so as to cause erratic burning,' to keep the specimen horizontal, and (2) when testing a specimen that has an available width of not more than 2 inches, to position and mount the specimen on the U-shaped frames used in the test. Standard No. 302 makes no provision for using the wires other than in these two situations. The agency follows the test procedure specified in Standard No. 302 when testing vehicles for compliance with the requirements of the standard. The agency uses heat-resistant wires as specified in S5.1.3 when there is a reasonable expectation that a test specimen will bend or curl while burning. NHTSA bases its determination about the likelihood of bending or curling on observations made in previously-conducted compliance tests of the specimen, or on the agency's knowledge of or testing experience with materials similar to a test specimen. I would like to point out that manufacturers are not required by Standard No. 302 to test the flammability of their vehicles in only the manner specified in the standard. The standard only sets the procedure that the agency will use in its compliance testing. Thus, a manufacturer is not required to use wires only with specimens that are anticipated to bend or curl, or that are too small to fit in the test frame without wires. However, manufacturers must exercise due care in making their certification of compliance that their product will meet the standard's requirements when tested by the agency according to the specified procedures of the standard. Whether a manufacturer meets that due care standard when using heat-resistant wires in situations other than those described in Standard No. 302 is a matter that can be determined only in the context of an enforcement proceeding. Please contact us if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel /";

ID: 23381ogm

Mr. Robert Babcock
Manager
Government Affairs
Hyundai America Technical Center
5075 Venture Dr.
Ann Arbor, MI 48108

Dear Mr. Babcock:

This responds to your electronic mail message of July 9, 2001, regarding the requirements of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. Your letter asks whether seat belt anchorages must meet the location requirements found in S4.3 of Standard No. 210 after the anchorages have been subjected to testing to determine if they comply with the anchorage strength requirements found in S4.2. Your message indicates that Hyundai believes that the anchorages are not required to meet the anchorage location requirements after testing for compliance with S4.2. You ask the agency to confirm that your company's interpretation is correct.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) agrees with your interpretation.

Standard No. 210 applies to new vehicles and does not require that anchorages remain in their original positions after being subjected to the severe loads that may occur in a crash. Strength requirements for seat belt anchorages are found in S4.2 of the Standard. These requirements specify that seat belt anchorages must withstand a certain amount of force when tested in accordance with procedures found in S5. As you point out in your message, S4.2.3 of Standard No. 210 indicates that deformation of a seat belt anchorage or the surrounding area is not considered to be a failure if the forces required by S4.2.1 are maintained for a specified time. Therefore, Standard No. 210 anticipates that some deformation of an anchorage or the nearby structure is likely when an anchorage is subjected to the loads it would be exposed to in a crash. Such deformation may cause changes to the location or geometry of anchorages that complied with S4.3 prior to being tested for compliance with S4.2. NHTSA would not consider the post-test position of the anchorages to determine compliance with S4.3.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:210
d.1/17/02

ID: nht79-2.16

DATE: 11/02/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Hisakazu Murakami Technical Representative - Safety Engineering Office of North America Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. 1919 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Suite 707 P.O. Box 57105 WashinSton, D.C. 20037

Dear Mr. Murakami:

This is in response to your letter of September 14, 1979, in which you asked about the applicability of the variable intensity illumination requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 101-80, Controls and Displays, to various components in your company's automobiles. You listed and identified these parts in Figure 1 of your letter which will refer to in answering your questions.

The variable intensity illumination requirements of section 5.3.3 of Safety Standard 101-80 are applicable to (1) "con- trols, gauges, and their identification, and to (2) any illumination that is provided in the passenger compartment when and only when the headlights are activated." As noted in section 5 of Safety Standard 101-80, the location identification, and illumination requirements are applicable only to passenger cars and other vehicles equipped with any control listed in section 5.1 or in column 1 of Table 1. The term "gauqe" is defined in Section 4 as a "display that is listed in section 5.1 or in Table 2 and is not a telltale."

Applying these criteria to the list of automobile components in your letter, I have concluded that none of the listed components, except the ordinary clock and the automatic gear position illumination lamp, are subject to the requirements of section 5.3.3 of Safety Standard 101-80. Since this result resolves the issues raised in Questions Q2.1 - Q2.5 of your letter, I have not addressed them in this response.

The components identified in your diagram by letters a - h (the room lamp, spot lamp, luggage room lamp, personal lamp, radio, foot lamp step lamp, and the luggage room lamp for hatchback vehicles) are not subject to the requirements of section 5.3.3. This is because they are not controls listed in section 5.1 or in column 1 of Table 1 of Safety Standard 101-80 and because they do not illuminate the passenger compartment when and only when the headlights are activated.

Similarly the glove box lamp and the console box lamp (items i and j) are not subject to section 5.3.3. They are not controls listed in Safety Standard 101-80 and they are not activated when and only when the headlights are activated since their activation requires both opening the box lids and switching on the headlights.

The ignition key illumination lamp (item k), which is not a control listed in Safety Standard 101-80, is activated when the light control switch is turned to the "small lights only" position (this activates the clearance clamps, identification lamps, and other exterior lamps other than the headlights.) When the switch is turned to the position that activates both, the small lights and the headlights, the key illumination lamp is deactivated. Consequently, the lamp is not activated when and only when the headlights are activated and is, therefore, not subject to the variable intensity illumination requirements.

You noted in conversation with Ms. Debra Weinner of my office that your company uses two types of clocks (item 1 in your letter) in its automobiles. One is an ordinary clock whose face is illuminated when and only when the headlights are activated. The requirements of section 5.3.5 would apply to the illumination of this type of clock.

The other clock used in your company's automobiles is a digital clock with a flourescent readout which shines with greater intensity during the day and with a lower intensity at night when the headlights are activated. Since this clock is not a control or a display listed in Safety Standard 101-80 and its illumination is not activated when and only when the headlamps are activated, the requirements of section 5.3.3 for continuously variable illumination are not applicable. Section 5.3.3 also provides that light intensity for informational readout systems shall have at least two values. The term "informational readout systems" which is not defined in Safety Standard 101-80 refers to the term "informational readout display," which is defined as "a display using light-emitting diodes, liquid crystals, or other electro illuminating devices where one or more than one type of information or message may be displayed." The term "display" includes only those displays listed in section 5.1 or in column 1 of Table 2 of the standard and these listings do not include a digital clock. Therefore, the digital clock would not be subject to the light intensity requirements for informational readout systems.

The automatic gear position illumination lamp (item m in your letter) is subject to the variable intensity illumination requirements of section 5.3.3. Although it is not a control (see preamble to Safety Standard 101-80, 43 FR 27541, June 26, 1978) this lamp is activated when and only when the headlights are activated.

In Question 2 of your letter, you asked for the definition of the terms "continuously variable" and "variable." The term "continuously variable" is defined in section 5.3.3(a) and (b) of Safety Standard 101-80. It is followed by a description of the two light intensities which must be provided for informational readout systems. The term "variable" appears in the next sentence in section 5.3.3 which states that:

"The intensity of any illumination that is provided in the passenger compartment when and only when the headlights are activated shall also be variable in a manner that complies with this paragraph.

The underlined words in the quoted sentence refer to the definition of "continuously variable" except in the case of informational readout displays where the words refer to illumination of two intensities.

If you have any further questions, I will be happy to answer them.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

September 14, 1979

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Re FMVSS 101-80 - Controls and Displays I would like to take this opportunity to ask for your interpretation with regard to FMVSS No. 101-80 - Controls and Displays.

I would appreciate it if you could please answer the questions that I have attached.

Thank you for your usual fine cooperation.* CR Very truly yours,

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.

Hisakazu Murakami Technical Representative Safety

HM:kb

Attachments Q-1 Generally speaking, would it be necessary for each one of items (a) to (m) in Figure-1 to meet the requirements of S 5.3.3?

Q-2 Assuming that your answer to Q-1 is "yes",

Q-2.1 Please explain the reason for your answer being "yes"

Q-2.2 Would the light intensity of (a) to (e), as shown in Figure-1, and having individual "On-Off" Manual Switches be considered variable?

Q-2.3 Would the light intensity of (f) Foot Lamp, (g) Step Lamp and (h) Luggage Room lamp, which light automatically only when doors are open, and not when they are closed, be considered variable?

Q-2.4 Would the light ingensity of (i) Glove Box Lamp and (j) Console Box Lamp, which are placed in their boxes and light only when the headlights are activated and their lids are open, be considered variable?

Q-2.5 Would the light intensity of (k) Ignition Key Illumination Lamp, which is placed near ignition key cylinder and lights only when clearance lamps, identification lamps and side marker lamps, etc. (other than headlights) are lit, be considered variable?

Q-2.6 Would the clock (1) with the flourescent display be considered to be the informational readout system?

Q-2.7 Assuming that your answers to Q-2.2 -Q-2.5 are "no", please explain the definition of the word "variable" and "not continuously variable".

Q-2.8 Would the light intensity of (m) Automatic Gear Position Illumination Lamp, which is placed on the floor-console box, be required to be variable, or continuously variable?

**INSERT** (a) Room (Dome) Lamp

(b) Spot Lamp (like one in airplane)

(c) Luggage Room for wagon vehicle -

(d) Personal Lamp for rear seat passengers

(e) Radio

(f) Foot Lamp

(g) Step Lamp

(h) Luggage Room Lamp for hatchback vehicle

(i) Glove Box Lamp

(j) Console Box Lamp

(k) Ignition Key Illumination Lamp (l) Clock

(l) Clock

(m) Automatic Gear Position Illumination Lamp -

FIGURE - 1

ID: 2526y

Mr. John W. Garringer
158 E. Center Street
Shavertown, Pennsylvania 18708

Dear Mr. Garringer:

This responds to your letter asking whether Federal law permits the installation of tinted plastic film on the bottom of motor vehicle windshields. The purpose of this film would be to reduce glare for the driver and any front seat passengers. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain how our laws and regulations apply to such a product.

Our agency is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; the Safety Act) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products or processes. Instead, the Safety Act specifies that each manufacturer itself must certify that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards, and also investigates alleged defects related to motor vehicle safety and alleged violations of other statutory provisions.

Pursuant to this authority, NHTSA has issued Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205), which sets forth performance requirements for windows and other glazing items installed in motor vehicles. Among the requirements set forth in Standard No. 205 are specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance. A minimum of 70 percent light transmittance is required in glazing areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars. In trucks and buses, the windshield and windows to the immediate right and left of the driver and the rearmost window, if the latter is used for driving visibility, are considered to be requisite for driving visibility, and therefore subject to the 70 percent minimum light transmittance requirement.

Your letter did not provide any information on the light transmittance that would be measured through glazing with your Hood Glare product installed on it. The combination of the glazing material and your tinting film must allow at least 70 percent light transmittance to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205. No manufacturer or dealer would be permitted to install your tinting film on the glazing materials on new vehicles, unless the manufacturer or dealer certifies that the vehicle continues to comply with the 70 percent minimum light transmittance and other requirements of Standard No. 205.

After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to the vehicle are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with any safety standard. This provision of the law means that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business could install tinting film if the addition of the tinting film to the glazing would result in a light transmittance of less than 70 percent, or otherwise cause the vehicle to no longer comply with the applicable requirements of Standard 205. Violations of this "render inoperative" prohibition can result in Federal civil penalties to the manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business of up to $1000 for each noncomplying installation.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act does not affect vehicle owners. Hence, vehicle owners themselves may install tinting film or any other product on the glazing of their vehicle, regardless of whether the installation causes the vehicle to no longer comply with Standard No. 205. Individual States have the authority to regulate the operational use of vehicles by their owners, and, therefore, have the authority to regulate or preclude individual owner modifications to the glazing of their vehicles.

I have enclosed an information sheet that summarizes the relationship between Federal auto safety laws and motor vehicle window tinting. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need any additional information about this topic, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:205#VSA d:6/l8/90