ID: nht90-2.35

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 27, 1990

FROM: Kent D. Smith

TO: Stephen P. Wood -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-10-90 from P.J. Rice to K.D. Smith (A36; Std. 108); Also attached to Federal Register, 49 CFR Ch. V (10-1-89 Edition), pages 137, 138, 139, and 140 (text omitted)

TEXT:

I appreciated your response to my letter (locater number #4387). In my initial letter to you I described a device that could be used to inform following vehicles that their headlights were blinding you and that they needed to put them on low beam. This device consisted of a button that would activate the backup lights momentarily and would send the same message to the following driver as blinking the headlights up and down does to inform oncoming cars that they needed to dim their lights.

At the present time there are three methods that people use to inform following vehicles that their high beam in your rear view mirrors are making it difficult for you to drive. Some try taping their brakelights. This method is not effective because it is more universally accepted to mean that the following driver is tailgating. Another method which was pointed out in the cartoon that you sent me was that you slow down, let the offending driver pass and then put your lights on high and give him a tast e of his own medicine. This may make you feel better but it doesn't take care of the problem when it is happening. The most extreme method, but the one that gets the message across better than the other two, is what many truck drivers have done and in some cases people in private vehicles. In the case of truckers some have attached a spot light to their side mirror and when the following vehicle doesn't dim his lights he gives him a blast in the eyes with the spot light. The message is clear but it' s a dangerous way of putting the point across because of it's blinding effect on the driver of the following vehicle.

I realize that my device need not be a mandated part of newly manufactured cars but I believe that it has a place as an option for new cars as well as an after market item. There was some concern on your part that this device "might" impair the effectiv eness of the lighting equipment that Standard No. 108 allows. Over the past number of years there have been several new devices added to the rear lighting system that have been an enhancement and not an impairment. Three of them that I have in mind are the turn signal, the four way emergency lights, and the brake light that is placed in the rear view window. I suppose that at the beginning there was some question as to what they meant but it didn't take the public long to understand the message they were trying to convey. I believe that the public would be equally as fast understanding the message that the "rear high beam awareness light" was trying to convey.

A Federal Standard, SAE J593e 4.2, states that "Backup lamps shall not be lighted when the vehicle is in forward motion". I believe that the intent of this law is to force people to repair their backup light system when the lights are stuck in an on pos ition. With my safety device the backup

lights would go on and off in a matter of a second or two so it would seem to me that the spirit of this law would not be violated. I feel that this would be a safe way of eliminating an annoying problem (high beams in your rear view mirrors) that up to now has not been resolved.

What steps would have to be taken in regards to this SAE Standard that would permit me to test market this product? In your legal opinion would I be in violation of any Federal Law by manufacturing and selling this device?

I again thank you for your time and patience and look forward to hearing from you in the near future.

Please send your reply to: Kent D. Smith 12249 S. 1565 E. Draper Utah 84020

P.S. To save you the time of looking it up I'm enclosing my previous letter sent to your office Jan. 26, 1990. (Locater # 4387)

ID: aiam1002

Dear Mr. Moore: This is in reply to your letter of February 1 to Mr. B.M. Crittenden Regional Administrator, concerning emergency flashers.; Effective January 1, 1969, all new automobiles were required to mee Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, 'Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment,' which in turn required the vehicular hazard warning signal operating unit to meet Society of Automotive Engineers Standard J910, January 1966. Prior to January 1, 1969, automobiles were required to meet the standards and regulations of the individual States. Since New York required hazard warning signals (4-way flashers) in 1966, most automobiles manufactured for sale throughout the United States were similarly equipped.; SAE J910 did not contain requirements relating the activation of th signal to the position or rotation of the steering wheel. Several States prohibited the operation of the subject signal on a moving vehicle, therefore, on many cars, this signal was cancelled by the rotation of the steering wheel, and consequently could not be activated even with the vehicle stopped with the steering wheel in certain positions.; We are unaware of similar complaints on the activation of the hazar warning signals.; Sincerely, E. T. Driver, Director, Office of Operating Systems, Moto Vehicle Programs;

ID: nht89-1.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/10/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: J. W. LAWRENCE -- MANAGER COMPLIANCE VOLVO GM HEAVY TRUCK CORPORATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 10/05/88 FROM J. W. LAWRENCE TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION FMVSS 124 ACCELERATOR CONTROL SYSTEMS, OCC 2650; LETTER DATED 03/17/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO LEON STEENBOCK

TEXT: Dear Mr. Lawrence:

This is a response to your letter of October 5, 1988, asking this agency to "reconsider and rescind" an interpretation of Standard 124, Accelerator Control Systems (49 CFR @ 571.124). The interpretation which was the subject of your request was addresse d to Mr. Leon Steenbock and dated March 17, 1988. Mr. Steenbock asked whether it is permissible under Standard 124 to install a locking hand throttle control in a new motor vehicle. In our response to Mr. Steenbock, we stated that while nothing in the Standard prohibits installing a hand-throttle control in a new vehicle, "'locking hand throttle controls' are expressly prohibited by Standard 124."

In your letter, you stated that most (and perhaps all) heavy truck manufacturers install hand throttles for engine warm-up, extended idle periods; and for vocational applications such as pumping, compacting, and mixing. You also stated that your company installs only locking hand throttle controls and that these locking hand throttle controls hold the driver-selected engine idle speed until such time as the driver selects a new idle speed, or disengages the throttle.

In support of your position that the letter to Mr. Steenbock was incorrect, you referred to the agency's response to petitions for reconsideration of Standard 124. NHTSA's response to requests that special provisions be made for hand throttles was as fo llows:

Mack and Alfa Romeo petitioned that "hand-throttles" and throttle positioners be specifically excluded from the definition of "idle position." Petitioners stated that in the event such a device is used a return to the present throttle position occurs upon release of the driver-operated accelerator control system. This request is granted. If a driver choose to raise the lowest engine speed

threshold by the use of a throttle positioning device, the throttle should return to that new position within the same time requirements specified in section S5.3. Accordingly, the NHTSA is amending the definition of "idle position" to provide for the u se of throttle positioners. (37 FR 20033, September 23, 1972.)

In accordance with this stated intent, the definition of "idle position" in S4.1 of Standard 124 was amended to read:

(T)he position of the throttle that will provide the lowest engine speed for existing conditions according to the manufacturers' recommendations. These conditions include, but are not limited to, engine speed adjustments for cold engine, air conditio ning equipment, and emission control equipment, and the use of throttle setting devices.

Because of this language, we agree with your position that Standard 124 permits the installation of hand throttles, including locking hand throttle controls, provided that the vehicle's engine returns to the lowest engine speed threshold as adjusted by u se of the hand throttle within the time and under the conditions set forth in S5 of Standard 124. To the extent that our March 17, 1988 letter is inconsistent with this interpretation, it is incorrect.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please call Joan F. Tilghman of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-1.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/01/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Bureau of Economic Analysis

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Edgar G. Meyer Bureau of Economic Analysis Florida Department of Commerce 407 Fletcher Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-2000

Dear Mr. Meyer:

This responds to your November 24, 1987 letter asking about the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, to the manufacture of automobile seat cushions and seat backs. Specifically, you asked whether it would be permissible if the fabric (i.e., felt) from which the seat cushions and seat backs would be manufactured were made from "old clothes and rags." Standard No. 302 neither specifies nor prohibits any particular type of raw material used to manufacture seat backs and seat cushions. The felt must meet the flammability requirements of the standard if it is used for cushions and seat backs for new motor vehicles. Also, felt used to manufacture seat cushions and seat backs for new and used motor vehicles must contain no safety related defects.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and NHTSA regulations require manufacturers of new motor vehicles to certify that their vehicles comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including Standard No. 302. Standard No. 302 specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used to manufacture seat cushions and seat backs on new passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses. Thus, any person manufacturing a new vehicle with seat backs and seat cus hions made from the felt material you described must ensure that the seat backs and cushions possess the burn resistance characteristics required by Standard No. 302. If the felt can meet those requirements, it may be used in new motor vehicles in satisf action of Standard No. 302, regardless of the felt's raw materials.

The felt manufacturer should also be aware that the Vehicle Safety Act requires all vehicle and equipment manufacturers to ensure that their products contain no defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If it were determined by the manufacturer or this a gency that the seat cushions and seat backs had a safety related defect, all purchasers of the vehicle containing the defective equipment would have to be notified and the defective item repaired or replaced without charge.

If the felt material is used to manufacture items of motor vehicle equipment that are sold to vehicle owners for use in used vehicles (i.e., vehicles previously purchased in good faith for purposes other than resale), the felt need not meet Standard No. 302. In general, it would not violate Standard No. 302 to add aftermarket seat cushions to used vehicles, even if the addition of the seat cushions caused the vehicles to no longer comply with the standard.

This general rule is, however, limited by the application of the provisions of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That section specifies: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative vehi cle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ..." The flammability resistance of the original vehicle is an element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with Standard No. 30 2. Thus, any person in the aforementioned categories that installed a seat cushion which did not comply with the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302 would be rendering inoperative that element of design, and thereby violating a secti on 108(a)(2)(A). Section 109 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of section 108.

Again, the manufacturer of the aftermarket seat cushions would be obligated to recall and remedy cushions that are determined to contain a safety related defect, even if the cushions were installed by the vehicle owners themselves.

You asked about other Federal laws that might have a bearing on the manufacture of the felt material. You might wish to contact the Occupational Safety and Health Administration at (202) 523-8148 and the Environmental Protection Agency at (202) 475-8040 for information about the applicability of any of their statutes and regulations.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Division of Economic Development

November 24, 1987

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Room 5219 Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

We have a British prospect who is considering moving to Florida to manufacture felt for car seat cushions and seat backs. He will be using old clothes and rags as raw materials.

Pursuant to our telephone conversation with Ms. Deidre Hom of Your office, it is our understanding that Standard No. 302: Flammability of Interior Materials (Vol. 49, Section 571.302 Code of Federal Regulations) applies to seat cushions and seat backs.

We would appreciate if you could provide us with a legal interpretation addressing the prospect's question: Is it legal in the U.S. to manufacture felt for car seat cushions and seat backs using old clothes and rags as raw materials?

The prospect will visit Florida in early December. We would like to be ready with an answer at that time. Our telefax number is 904/487-1407. If you have any questions please call me at 904/487-2971.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely, Edgar G . Meyer Economist EGM/mw cc: Deidre Hom

ID: vanhool.2

Mr. Wilfried Geens
Compliance and Regulations
Van Hool N.V.
Bernard Van Hoolstraat 58
B-2500 Lier Koningshooikt
Belgium

Dear Mr. Geens:

This responds to your letter of July 23, 2004, in which you sought clarification as to whether certain identified headlamp assembly designs for one of your motor coach models would comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. Your letter went on to describe four potential headlamp assembly designs containing three horizontally-aligned lamps on each side of the vehicle, which reflect "European styling" that you wish to introduce to the U.S. market. To simplify the discussion, each of these proposed designs is described below, followed by our response.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). NHTSA does not provide approval of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, and we do not determine compliance of a vehicle or item of equipment outside the context of an actual enforcement proceeding. Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture. The following represents our opinion regarding the applicability of our laws to your products based upon the facts set forth in your letter.

Before turning to your specific questions, I would like to clarify generally our requirements for headlighting systems of the type described in your letter. Your letter described your existing European headlamp assembly containing three projector lamps on each side, two of which provide an upper beam. These projector lamps are all at the same height, with a center lower beam projector flanked by two upper beam projectors.

An enclosure to your letter depicting one of the headlamp assemblies used in this system leads us to believe that your system uses replaceable light sources. You stated that this design is in compliance with the relevant UN Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) Directive (ECE R48.02).

Vehicles offered for sale in the U.S. must meet all applicable requirements of NHTSAs FMVSSs, and FMVSS No. 108 prohibits a vehicle with a replaceable bulb headlamp system from having more than two upper beams and two lower beams. Specifically, paragraph S7.5, Replaceable bulb headlamp systems, subparagraph (a) provides, "The system shall provide only two lower beams and two upper beams and shall incorporate not more than two replaceable light sources in each headlamp."  Based upon your questions, it is apparent that you recognize this limitation and seek to identify lamp arrangements that meet the requirements of the standard. For the sake of analysis, we assume that your motor coaches are 80 inches or more in overall width and that the described upper and lower beams comply with the photometric requirements of FMVSS No. 108.

PROPOSAL 1

"Keep the European look with the 3 lamps at each side, permanently disconnecting the electrical supply of the outer upper beams (See enclosure, position 4)."

Response

We believe that this proposed design would not comply with FMVSS No. 108. Paragraph S5.3.1 of the standard discusses the location of required equipment, and that provision states that for multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, trailers, and buses 80 inches or more in overall width, such equipment must be located as specified in Table II of the standard. In turn, Table II provides related to buses that " each headlamp providing the lower beam [shall be located], at the same height, 1 on each side of the vertical centerline, as far apart as practicable."

Based upon your diagram showing a "disconnected" upper beam headlamp at the outboard-most position, we believe that it would clearly be practicable to locate the lower beam in that position. As a result the lower beams would not be located as far apart as practicable, so it appears that this proposed design would not comply with FMVSS No. 108.

PROPOSAL 2

"Replace the outer upper beams (Position 4) by an amber reflex reflector, in addition to the reflex reflectors allready [sic] fitted on the front bumper."

Response

We believe that this proposed design would not comply with FMVSS No. 108. In this case, the amber reflex reflector would be an item of supplemental lighting equipment not required under the standard. Consequently, its incorporation into the headlamp assembly, as described, again would impermissibly prevent the lower beams from being located as far apart as practicable. (See discussion in response to Proposal 1 immediately above.)

PROPOSAL 3

"Replace the outer upper beams (Position 4) by turn signal lamps, in addition to the turn signal lamps at the top of the front lighting clusters (Position 3)."

Response

We believe that this proposed design would not comply with FMVSS No. 108. Table II provides that turn signal lamps in buses shall be located as follows: "At or near the front 1 amber on each side of the vertical centerline, at the same height, and as far apart as practicable. On the rear 1 red or amber on each side of the vertical centerline, at the same height, and as far apart as practicable." As noted above, Table II also requires lower beam headlamps (again, items of required equipment) to be as far apart as practicable.

However, for required lamps that are required to be as far apart as practicable, we have not established a hierarchy regarding which of those items should take precedence in terms of placement location. If the only turn signal lamp on the front of the vehicle were located at the outboard-most position as a substitute for that upper beam headlamp (position 4 of your diagram), such configuration might be permissible.

Nevertheless, Proposal 3 clearly demonstrates that it is practicable to include a turn signal at position 3 (already present directly above the outboard-most headlamp) and that it is practicable to include a headlamp at position 4 (currently a high beam). Thus, your current design demonstrates that it would be practicable to move the lower beam headlamp to the most outboard position (position 4). Such location would meet the standards requirement for the lower beam headlamps to be as far apart as practicable. As a result, it appears that this proposed design would not comply with FMVSS No. 108.

PROPOSAL 4

"Replace the outer upper beams by any other device in compliance with FMVSS No. 108, S5.5.11 (e.g. daytime running lamps) without changing the European look."

Response

We believe that this proposed design would not comply with FMVSS No. 108. In this case, the daytime running lights would be an item of supplemental lighting equipment not required under the standard. Consequently, their incorporation into the headlamp assemblies, as described, would again prevent the lower beams from being located as far apart as practicable. (See discussion in response to Proposal 1 above.)

If you have any questions, you may contact Eric Stas of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.9/7/04

ID: nht91-5.48

DATE: September 16, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Brett Reed -- Design Engineer, Imo Industries, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-20-91 from Brett Reed to Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 6152)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 102, Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect, as it relates to electronic-transmission shift controls that operate automatic transmissions used in heavy duty trucks and RV's and on solenoid operated powershift transmissions used in various on and off highway vehicles. You asked whether "the intent of (section S3.1.3 of the standard) is to render the engine starter inoperative when the transmission is in a forward or reverse drive gear or when the shift lever . . . is in such a gear." As discussed below, Standard No. 102 expressly provides that the engine starter shall be inoperative when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards. The following provides our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Section S3.1.3 of Standard No. 102 reads as follows:

S3.1.3 Starter interlock. The engine starter shall be inoperative when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position.

The standard thus expressly provides that the engine starter shall be inoperative when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position.

You state in your letter that "(t)he interests of public safety will be best served by requiring that the engine starter be inoperative when the transmission itself, not the transmission shift lever, is in a forward or reverse drive gear." According to your letter, with the introduction of electronic shift systems and fully electronic transmissions, the connection between the shift lever and the transmission is rarely performed by direct mechanical means, and there is a possibility that the shift lever position may not match the gear currently engaged by the transmission in situations where the transmission control circuitry overrides the shift lever selection in the interest of safety, transmission protection or other criteria related to specific applications. You state that any attempt to artificially match the electronic shift lever's position to the gear currently enaged by the transmission in such override situations involves added cost and

complexity, as well as safety and reliability concerns. You also argue that requiring the shift lever to be moved to neutral when the transmission itself is already in neutral due to some override condition imposes unnecessary safety hazards in some applications.

You should be aware that sections S3.1.4.1 and S3.1.4.2 of Standard No. 102 require identification of shift lever positions, including the positions in relation to each other and the position selected, to be displayed in view of the driver. A design where the shift lever position displayed to the driver did not match the gear currently engaged by the transmission would not comply with this requirement, since it would not show the position selected. We believe that such a design raises obvious safety concerns, regardless of the technology used for the transmission and shift system, since it would mislead the driver concerning the gear position selected.

I note that the vehicles your letter asks about include, among others, "various on and off highway vehicles," and that the term "off highway vehicles" could include certain vehicles which are not considered "motor vehicles." Standard No. 102, as well as NHTSA's other safety standards, apply only to motor vehicles.

I hope this information is helpful to you. 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 at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht88-3.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/12/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: DALLAS MCCLAIN -- PRO TOUR, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 09/21/87 FROM DALLAS MCCLAIN TO OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA, RE CLARIFICATION/INTERPRETATION OF SEATING STANDARDS; OCC-1055

TEXT: Dear Mr. McClain:

This responds to your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) asking four questions about the applicability of Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, to buses other than school buses. I regret the delay in responding.

Your first question asks about the agency's definition of a "bus" and a "multipurpose passenger vehicle." You ask how the two definitions differ, and whether the definitions are based on passenger capacity or the gross vehicle weight rating of a vehicle.

A vehicle is classified as either a bus or a multipurpose passenger vehicle based in part on its passenger capacity. Our definitions for the motor vehicle safety standards are set forth in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 571.3 (copy en closed). In that regulation, we define a "bus" as "a motor vehicle ... designed for carrying more than 10 persons." A "multipurpose passenger vehicle" is defined as "a motor vehicle ... designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation."

For your information, the agency is presently reviewing its classification of motor vehicles, in response to a petition for rulemaking from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. In October, 1987, NHTSA published an advance notice of proposed rulem aking which discussed various issues raised by the petition. I have enclosed a copy of the notice for your information.

Your second question asks about the requirements of Standard No. 207 applying to side-facing seats and bus passenger seats. You ask whether these seats are exempt from the standard's performance requirements. You also ask whether these seats are "cover ed under another safety standard."

Section S2 of Standard No. 207 provides that the standard applies to buses (among other vehicle types). Section S4.2, General performance

requirements, provides that "(w)hen tested in accordance with S5., each occupant seat other than a side-facing seat or a passenger seat on a bus, shall withstand" specified forces. Passenger seats on a bus are thus excluded from the requirements of section S4.2. However, the driver's seat on a bus is not excluded from the requirements of that section. The testing procedures of section S5 are only relevant to seats which are subject to the general performance requirements of section S4.2.

Similarly, section S4.3, Restraining device for hinged or folding seats or seat backs, provides that "(e)xcept for a passenger seat in a bus or a seat having a back that is adjustable only for the comfort of its occupants, a hinged or folding occupant se at or occupant seat back shall" meet specified requirements. Passenger seats on a bus are thus excluded from the requirements of section S4.3. Assuming that a hinged or folding occupant seat or occupant seat back were provided for the driver, it would n ot be excluded from the requirements of that section unless it had a back that was adjustable only for the comfort of its occupant.

Safety Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, specifies criteria for testing school bus passenger seats. That standard is not applicable to buses other than school buses. The agency does not have any other standards which provide criteria for testing the strength of seating systems of buses. Bus seat cushions and seat backs are, however, subject to the flammability resistance requirements of Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials.

We answered the first part of your third question, which asks whether "perimeter seating" on a bus is excluded from some Standard No. 207 requirements, in our response to your second question. A passenger seat on a bus is excluded from the standard's ge neral performance requirements (S4.2) and the requirements for a restraining device for the seat back (S4.3). With the exception of Standard 302, there are no performance requirements for seat cushions for passenger seats on a bus other than a school bu s.

With respect to your question whether "perimeter seating" is considered "side-facing," generally seats installed along the vehicle's sides which face the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle are considered side-facing. Seats that face toward the front of rear of the vehicle are not considered side-facing.

Your fourth and final question asks, "While seats not designated for use while the vehicle is moving (MVSS 207, S4.4) must be labeled, must other occupant seating subject to MVSS 207 and MVSS 302 be labeled with a 'law label' indicating the seat has met these standards?"

You are correct that S4.4 of Standard No. 207 requires that seats not designated for occupancy while the vehicle is in motion must be conspicuously labeled to that effect. However, we do not require the extensive labeling you suggest, i.e., we do not re quire that each seat bear a label indicating that the seat complies with applicable requirements of the Federal safety standards. Instead, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and NHTSA's regulations, the new vehicle manufacturer cert ifies that a vehicle complies with all

applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including Standards No. 207 and No. 302, by affixing a single label of the type and in the manner set forth in the agency's certification regulation, 49 CFR Part 567. For your convenience, I have en closed a copy of Part 567 and information on how you can obtain copies of other NHTSA regulations and standards.

I hope this letter is helpful. Please contact us if you have further questions.

ENCLOSURES

ID: aiam3711

Dear Mr. Tokunaga: This responds to your letter of May 26, 1983, asking whether continuous loop seat belt system you are considering would comply with the requirements of Safety Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*.; Continuous seat belt systems are permissible under Safety Standard No 208 if certain conditions are met. Paragraph S7.1.1 of that standard requires adjustment of the lap belt portion of Type 2 belts '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 if the single retractor does 'automatically adjust' the tension of the lap belt portion to prevent excessive slack. Because of the danger of submarining due to a slack lap belt, the agency has restricted the acceptability of continuous loop systems under S7.1.1.; To conform to the requirements, the buckle of the assembly must b designed by the manufacturer with a sufficiently low level of friction to qualify the lap portion as automatically adjusting. This means that when the belt is buckled by the vehicle occupant, the retractor must be capable of cinching the lap belt tightly around the occupants, pelvic area (regardless of where the buckle tongue is located along the belt webbing when the belt is fastened). The friction in the buckle tongue cannot be so high that the occupant must manually pull the belt webbing through the tongue to tighten the lap belt.; We note your statement that the one-way frictional bar included in you contemplated belt design 'permits the wearer to fasten the lap belt more tightly than the tension from the ELR usually achieves.' This is certainly permissible, provided the ELR does tighten the belt sufficiently for the lap belt to be considered automatically adjustable. You will have to make this determination, however. Please note that it is the manufacturer's responsibility to determine whether or not its belt design complies with the standard. The agency does not offer advance approval of any motor vehicle or piece of motor vehicle equipment. Further, the agency does not make determination of compliance of a vehicle or item of equipment prior to the manufacturer's certification of that vehicle or equipment.; I hope this clarification will be of help to you in your design plans. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1034

Dear Mr. Bauer: This is in reply to your letter of January 25, 1973, to Gordo Lindquist, Regional Administrator, NHTSA, asking whether Federal standards require the installation of seat belts on certain vehicles you manufacture. According to brochures you have submitted, these vehicles are your RH 25 3-cu. yd. heavy duty hydraulic shovel, R-150-1 15-ton hydraulic crane, W-350 35-ton hydraulic swinger crane, and T-150 15-ton fully hydraulic truck crane.; With reference to the first three vehicles, the RH 25, R-150-1 an W-350, the NHTSA does not consider these vehicles to be manufactured primarily for use on the public roads. Therefore, they are not 'motor vehicles' subject to regulation under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. We view them as construction equipment whose use of the public roads is incidental to their primary work-performing purpose.; THe NHTSA believes, however, based on the information you hav submitted, that the T-150 hydraulic truck crane is a motor vehicle under the Safety Act, and a 'truck' under the motor vehicle safety standards. We base this determination on the vehicle's speed capability, that its manufacturer classifies it as a 'truck crane', and that its overall appearance appears to be that of a vehicle designed to be used on the highway. As a truck, the vehicle is required to be equipped with seat belts as specified in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208, copy enclosed). It is required also to conform to safety requirements specified in other safety standards and regulations. Copies of the standards can be obtained as described in the enclosed, 'Where to obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations'.; Our decision as to whether this vehicle is a motor vehicle is base only on that information which you have provided us. Other relevant factors which can be taken into consideration are set forth in the enclosed interpretation regarding mini- bikes. If you have further information which you believe we should also consider we will be glad to review it.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel

ID: 30112 30113 - Goodman

Mr. Timothy H. Goodman
Thomas Hine LLP
1919 M Street, N.W. Suite 700
Washington, D.C. 20036 Dear Mr. Goodman:

This responds to your October 8, 2021 letter concerning two provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) (49 U.S.C.§§ 30101 et seq.) as applied to several automated vehicles your client produces. The vehicles are currently undergoing testing on public roads for testing or evaluation under the non-application provision in 49 U.S.C. 30112(b)(10).1 After the testing, your client plans to seek a general exemption under 49 U.S.C. 30113 (regulations codified at 49 CFR part 555) for the sale or commercial deployment of identical vehicles.2 You ask: if the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) were to grant the part 555 exemption petition for the identical vehicles, could the grant include the vehicles now undergoing testing on public roads? You believe the answer should be yes.
 
As explained below, NHTSA agrees with much of your analysis regarding the logic in including the nonconforming FAST Act vehicles3 in the part 555 exemption since the vehicles in the two groups would be identical. However, there is tension between 30112(b)(10) and 30113 that must be reconciled, and a provision in part 555 that is contrary to this outcome.4 The part 555 provision could be changed, but changes to the regulations are best accomplished through notice and comment rulemaking. So, while NHTSA agrees with the logic of your interpretation request, we believe that seeking a change via rulemaking would resolve the ambiguity in the applicable laws more definitively and would provide an opportunity for public comment on the issue.

Background
 
The Safety Act directs, in general, that a person may not manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the effective date of an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS), unless the vehicle or equipment complies with the standard.5 However, the prohibition is subject to exceptions and exemptions,6 two of which are relevant to your letter.

First, § 30112(b)(10), established in December 2015 as part of the FAST Act, states that the general prohibition in 30112 that a person may not manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import, nonconforming vehicles does not apply to the “introduction of a motor vehicle in interstate commerce solely for purposes of testing or evaluation by a [qualifying] manufacturer that agrees not to sell or offer for sale the motor vehicle at the conclusion of the testing or evaluation.”7 This provision allows those qualifying manufacturers to operate, on public roads, nonconforming domestically produced vehicles for testing or evaluation. (The manufacturer you describe in your letter is a qualifying manufacturer under § 30112(b)(10).)

Second, § 30113 authorizes NHTSA to exempt motor vehicles from an FMVSS under defined circumstances, thereby temporarily allowing manufacturers to produce nonconforming vehicles for sale or other commercial deployment. Vehicles may only be exempted under § 30113 under one of four enumerated bases, including a basis that the vehicle for which the exemption is sought offers an overall safety level at least equal to that of a nonexempt vehicle. (49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B)(iv), 49 CFR 555.6(d).)

Discussion

The tension between 30112(b)(10) and 30113 arises because the former has language limiting the sale of vehicles introduced in interstate commerce for testing or evaluation after completion of such testing or evaluation, while the latter allows manufacturers a means to sell noncomplying vehicles that are at least as safe as non-exempted vehicles. However, we believe the provisions can be reconciled, as Congress enacted the FAST Act non-application clause after the general exemption provision of 30113 and presumably designed the two provisions to work in concert.
We believe Congress did not envision prohibiting manufacturers from selling or deploying vehicles previously tested or evaluated under 30112(b)(10) if those vehicles are identical to vehicles permitted for sale by 30113; if Congress intended such a surprising outcome under 30112(b)(10), it would have made its intentions clear. Accordingly, we interpret the clause “that agrees not to sell or offer for sale the motor vehicle at the conclusion of the testing or evaluation” as emphasizing Congress’s intent not to permit a later sale or offer for sale of the FAST Act vehicle if it is not at least as safe as a compliant vehicle. Thus, if NHTSA determines that vehicles identical to the 30112(b)(10) vehicles are at least as safe as non-exempt vehicles, it is logical that Congress intended that the 30112(b)(10) vehicles be permitted to be sold or deployed under 30113.
 
There is, however, more to reconciliating the two, as NHTSA’s regulation implementing 30113 bears on the situation at hand. 49 CFR 555.7(f) states: “[u]nless a later effective date is specified in the notice of the grant, a temporary exemption is effective upon publication of the notice in the Federal Register and exempts vehicles manufactured on and after the effective date.” NHTSA explained in the preamble to the final rule that established §555.7(f) that the amendment was “intended to clarify the agency’s policy that exemptions should not have retroactive effect which could serve to excuse manufacture of nonconforming vehicles in violation of […] the Safety Act.”8 We generally agree with your argument that your client’s testing and evaluation vehicles were not nonconforming vehicles in violation of the Safety Act because of the exception in 30112(b)(10) and so 555.7(f)’s focus on nonpermitted actions may not be germane. (Indeed, this is the basis for our position that part 555 could be reconciled with the Fast Act exception.) However, the plain language of part 555 is unambiguous as written; thus, our ability to interpret away from that plain meaning is limited. We believe addressing this matter in rulemaking is appropriate and would provide an opportunity to clarify part 555 as the regulation evolves to include vehicles previously manufactured.
 
To summarize, based on the language of part 555, NHTSA maintains its general position that part 555 is written to provide exemptions for vehicles that have yet to be manufactured. However, in the situation you describe, it would appear logical to allow the former FAST Act vehicles existing at the time NHTSA grants the part 555 petition to be included in the part 555 exemption. In order to remove any ambiguity, we believe that 49 CFR 555.7(f) should be amended, something NHTSA would consider upon receipt of a petition. Persons interested in submitting a petition for rulemaking to amend part 555 should follow the procedures for such submissions in 49 CFR part 552. It is worth stressing, however, that NHTSA’s conclusion in this letter is not a guarantee of a particular response to a petition for rulemaking. Any decision to grant or deny petitions for rulemaking is made in the context of a rulemaking proceeding in accordance with statutory criteria, including opportunity for notice and comment.     

If you have any further questions regarding this issue, please feel free to contact Callie Roach of my staff at (202) 366-2992.
 
Sincerely,
 
 Digitally signed by ANN
ANN ELIZABETH ELIZABETH CARLSON

CARLSON
 
Date: 2022.05.19 14:59:50
-04'00'
 
Ann Carlson Chief Counsel
 
Dated: 5/19/22
Ref: 30112 and 30113

1 The non-application provision at 49 U.S.C. § 30112(b)(10) was added in 2015 to the Safety Act by the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act.
2 The basis of the part 555 petition is the exempted vehicles would have an equivalent overall level of safety to a non-exempted vehicle. The exempted vehicles would operate as a single captive fleet; they would not be sold to ordinary consumers.
3 “FAST Act vehicles” refers to vehicles that are tested or evaluated subject to the exception in 30112(b)(10).
4 49 CFR §555.7(f).
5 Section 30112(a)(1) of the Safety Act (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.).
6 Sections 30112(a) and (b).
7 Paragraph 30112(b)(10) specifies that the non-applicability only extends to a manufacturer that, prior to the enactment of the FAST Act (December 4, 2015), has (a) manufactured and distributed motor vehicles into the U.S. that are certified to comply with all applicable FMVSS; (b) submitted to the Secretary appropriate manufacturer
identification information under 49 CFR part 566, “Manufacturer Identification;” and (c) if applicable, identified an agent for service of process in accordance with 49 CFR part 551, “Procedural Rules.”
8 39 FR 37988, October 25, 1974.