ID: nht92-8.24

DATE: March 16, 1992 EST

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Douglas Kubehl -- Safety Engineering Associates, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/4/92 from Douglas Kubehl to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6978)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of February 4, 1992, concerning the requirements of Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 209, Seat belt assemblies. You asked for verification of your understanding of the requirements of two sections of Standard No. 209. Your discussion of these two sections and our response follows.

In 209-S.4.4a(1), it is clearly stated that a loop force of 5000 pounds is required to produce a force of 2500 pounds on each structural component. However, part 209-S4.4b(4) seems to be a bit ambiguous. It states: "The length of the pelvic restraint between anchorages shall not increase more than 20 inches or 50 centimeters when subjected to a force of 2500 pounds". My interpretation of this statement is that one must employ a loop force of 5000 pounds to achieve 2500 pounds of force on each component, as specified in S4.4a(1). I an concerned that one could misinterpret the above statement as requiring a 2500 pound loop force, rather than the intended value of 5000 pounds.

Your statements indicate a common misunderstanding of the requirements of S4.4 of Standard No. 209. A seat belt assembly would NOT be subject to the requirements of S4.4(a) AND to the requirements of S4.4(b). If the seat belt assembly is a Type 1 seat belt assembly, defined in S3 as "a lap belt for pelvic restraint," the assembly is subject to the requirements of S4.4(a). Section S4.4(a)(1) requires a Type 1 seat belt assembly loop to withstand a force of 5,000 pounds. Section S4.4(a)(2) states that the length of the assembly between the anchorages shall not increase more than 14 inches or 36 centimeters when the load required in S4.4(a)(1) is applied.

If the seat belt assembly is a Type 2 seat belt assembly, defined in S3, as "a combination of pelvic and upper torso restraints," the assembly is subject to the requirements of S4.4(b). Section S4.4(b)(1) requires the pelvic portion of a Type 2 seat belt assembly to withstand a force of 2,500 pounds. Section 4.4(b)(4) states that the length of the pelvic porion of the assembly shall not increase more than 20 inches or 50 centimeters when the load required in S4.4(b)(1) is applied.

Part 209-S5.3a, which addresses the performance of the belt assembly, refers to Figure 5 and requires a tensile force of 2500 pounds. It goes on to say that this force is equivalent to a 5000 pound force being applied to an assembly loop. Figure five is referred to several times throughout the passage, each reference requiring a specific force. Again, because the relationship of the tensile force to assembly loop force is not explicitly stated, we are concerned that one may mistake the tensile force to be the total loop force applied.

The test procedure to determine compliance with the requirements of S4.4 of Standard No. 209 is found in S5.3 of that standard. The test procedure for seat belt assemblies subject to the requirements of S4.4(a) (a pelvic restraint) is found in S5.3(a). As you have correctly stated, a force of 2,500 pounds is applied to each component of the pelvic restraint, or a force of 5,000 pounds to the entire loop. The test procedure for seat belt assemblies subject to the requirements of S4.4(b) (a combined pelvic and upper torso restraint) is found in S5.3(b). The pelvic portion of such a seat belt assembly is tested by applying a total force of 2,500 pounds to the entire loop.

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

ID: nht75-4.37

DATE: 06/26/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Department of Public Instruction - Delaware

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This letter is in further response to your phone call to Mr. David Soule, concerning the proper wording of captions above emergency doors and/or exits in school buses.

While we do not consider the phrase "Emergency Door" to be synonymous with "Emergency Exit" (we do not believe push-out windows or other nondoor emergency exits are appropriately marked "Emergency Door"), we would not consider a bus failing to conform to Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, if its emergency doors were marked "Emergency Door." Emergency exits other than doors, however, must be marked "Emergency exit." National Highway Traffic Safety Administration standards apply only to vehicles manufactured after a standard's effective date. Standard No. 217 does not apply to buses in use that were manufactured before its effective date of September 1, 1973.

I might point out that a Federal Register notice published February 26, 1975, proposing requirements for emergency doors in school buses would require that such exits be designated "Emergency Door."

ID: schaub.ztv

Mr. Frank A. Schaub
319 Burton Road
Beacon Falls, CT 06403

Dear Mr. Schaub:

We are replying to your e-mails of February 27 and March 4, 2003, with reference to your citation by local authorities who concluded that the modulating headlamp on your motorcycle was a flashing light and prohibited under the laws of Connecticut. You have asked for our assistance.

We have not reviewed Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles Regulation Section 14-137-99 which you reference, as we do not provide interpretations of State laws. However, I am enclosing a copy of a letter from this Office, dated June 20, 2000, to Michael L. Wagner which, based on facts you present, is squarely on point with your situation. In brief, we informed Mr. Wagner that, under Federal law, modulating headlamps are not flashing headlamps; modulating headlamps that comply with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards adopted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) are permissible for use on motorcycles; and a State (or a political subdivision of a State) is preempted by Federal law from having a local law that has the effect of prohibiting a motorcycle headlamp modulating system meeting Federal specifications. The letter to Mr. Wagner contains appropriate legal citations. This interpretation of June 20, 2000, remains in effect today.

As you requested, I am enclosing a copy of S7.9.4, Motorcycle headlamp modulation system, which is part of 49 CFR 571.108, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. I am also enclosing a copy of the section of the Federal statute governing the relationship of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards with State motor vehicle safety standards, 49 U.S.C. 30103(b), Preemption.

If there are any questions, please contact Taylor Vinson, Senior Attorney, NHTSA, at (202)-366-5263.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:108
d.3/24/03

ID: nht72-2.38

DATE: 08/17/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Ford Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 26, 1972, concerning the adjustment of a tractor's fifth wheel under the test conditions proposed in Docket 70-17, Notice 5.

You state that it is not possible to load the tractor to its GVWR with the tractor's nonsteerable axles and the trailer's axles at GAWR if the fifth wheel is set in more than one position. If this is the case, and the correct loading can be obtained with the fifth wheel in one position only, then only that position will be used in compliance testing. If more than one position can be used to produce the correct loading, the tractor must conform to the requirements of the standard with the fifth wheel at any such position.

ID: 2283y

Tracey Powell
Legislative Coordinator
Government Relations
American Motorcyclist Association
P.O. Box 6114
Westerville, OH 43081-6114

Dear Tracey Powell:

This is in reply to your letter of November l4, l989, with respect to existing prohibitions in some States against the use of modulating headlamps on motorcycles. The apparent basis of the prohibition is that flashing lamps are generally reserved for emergency vehicles. You point out the distinction that Standard No. l08 makes between the two types of headlamps, and ask our "assistance in attaining uniform recognition of the legal use of modulating headlights through the United States . . . ."

As you note, there is a legal distinction in Standard No. l08 between a modulating headlamp (one that goes from a higher to a lower intensity within either the upper or lower beam) and a flashing one (one that goes from either the upper or lower beam to off). Further, section S5.6.1 of Standard No. l08 provides that "A headlamp on a motorcycle may be wired to modulate." The authority of States to regulate this aspect of motorcycle lighting is constrained by section l03(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (l5 U.S.C. 1392(d)). This section provides in pertinent part that:

[w]henever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . is in effect, no State. . . shall have any authority either to extablish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle. . . any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle. . . which is not identical to the Federal standard."

The effect of this provision of the Safety Act with respect to lighting is to expressly prohibit a State from enacting a law that forbids a manufacturer from installing headlamp modulators on motorcycles.

I hope that this responds to your concerns.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel / ref:VSA#l08 d:2/l/90

ID: 8478

Mr. Jose M. Gonzalez
Engineering Manager
Kustom Fit
8990 Atlantic
Box 3004
South Gate, CA 90280

Dear Mr. Gonzalez:

This responds to your letter of March 25, 1993, regarding testing for Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. You are a manufacturer of seating products for the recreation vehicle industry. You propose to perform a baseline HYGE sled test using all OEM hardware and seats and then to perform a second test using OEM hardware and the seats you manufacture. You asked:

If the results of the test using our seats are equal or better than those obtained values with the OEM seats and hardware, does this test prove that our seats are safe to use instead of OEM? Can these results and procedures be acceptable as do diligent (sic) and can our seats then be certified for use in these vehicles regarding FMVSS 208?

Some background information may be helpful. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), which specifies performance requirements for the protection of vehicle occupants in crashes. (I note that a number of other safety standards also include requirements relevant to seats, including Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, and Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials.)

The Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. Standard No. 208, the subject of your inquiry, is applicable to vehicles and not to individual items of equipment (except for pressure devices and explosive devices used in air bags). Therefore, if one of your seats is installed in a vehicle during manufacture, the vehicle manufacturer is responsible for certifying that the completed vehicle complies with all applicable standards, including Standard No. 208. If the seat is added to a new, previously certified, motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer. An alterer is required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration.

Finally, if the seat is sold as aftermarket equipment to be installed in a used motor vehicle, the seat, as a piece of equipment, does not have to comply with any Federal standards. However, 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act provides, in pertinent part:

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. . . .

Therefore, none of these entities could install one of your seats if it caused the vehicle to no longer comply with any of the safety standards.

In all of these situations, you, as the seat manufacturer, would have no certification responsibilities under Standard No. 208. Therefore, with respect to that standard, the remainder of the discussion in this letter is applicable to vehicle manufacturers (including alterers).

Each of this agency's safety standards specifies the test conditions and procedures that this agency will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) precisely follows each of the specified test procedures and conditions when conducting its compliance testing. However, a manufacturer is not required to test its products only in the manner specified in the relevant safety standard, or even to test the products at all. A manufacturer may choose any means of evaluating its products to determine whether the vehicle complies with the requirements of the safety standards, provided, however, that the manufacturer assures that the vehicle will comply with the safety standards when tested by the agency according to the procedures specified in the standard.

Under certain circumstances, particularly if the agency testing shows an apparent noncompliance exists in a vehicle, the manufacturer may be asked to show the basis for its certification that the vehicle complies with the relevant safety standard or standards. If in fact there is a noncompliance, the manufacturer is subject to civil penalties under the Safety Act unless it can establish that it exercised "due care" in the design and manufacture of the product and in the evaluation (through actual testing, computer simulation, engineering analyses, or other means) to ensure compliance, but nevertheless did not have reason to know that the vehicle did not in fact comply with the safety standards.

This agency has long said that it is unable to judge what efforts would constitute "due care" in advance of the actual circumstances in which a noncompliance occurs. What constitutes "due care" in a particular case depends on all relevant facts, including such things as the limitations of current technology, the availability of test equipment, the size of the manufacturer, and, above all, the diligence exercised by the manufacturer.

You should also note that, while the exercise of "due care" may relieve a manufacturer of liability for civil penalties in connection with the manufacture and sale of noncomplying vehicles, it does not relieve a manufacturer of the responsibility to notify purchasers of the noncompliance and remedy the noncompliance without charge to the purchasers, if either the manufacturer or this agency determines that vehicles do not comply with all applicable safety standards.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#208 d:5/6/93

ID: nht93-3.35

DATE: May 6, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Jose M. Gonzalez -- Engineering Manager, Kustom Fit

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-25-93 from Jose M. Gonzalez to NHTSA (OCC 8478)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of March 25, 1993, regarding testing for Standard No. 208, OCCUPANT CRASH PROTECTION. You are a manufacturer of seating products for the recreation vehicle industry. You propose to perform a baseline HYGE sled test using all OEM hardware and seats and then to perform a second test using OEM hardware and the seats you manufacture. You asked:

If the results of the test using our seats are equal or better than those obtained values with the OEM seats and hardware, does this test prove that our seats are safe to use instead of OEM? Can these results and procedures be acceptable as do diligent (sic) and can our seats then be certified for use in these vehicles regarding FMVSS 208?

Some background information may be helpful. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 ET SEQ.; the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 208, OCCUPANT CRASH PROTECTION (49 CFR S571.208), which specifies performance requirements for the protection of vehicle occupants in crashes. (I note that a number of other safety standards also include requirements relevant to seats, including Standard No. 207, SEATING SYSTEMS, Standard No. 209, SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES, Standard No. 210, SEAT BELT ASSEMBLY ANCHORAGES, and Standard No. 302, FLAMMABILITY OF INTERIOR MATERIALS.) The Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. Standard No. 208, the subject of your inquiry, is applicable to vehicles and not to individual items of equipment (except for pressure devices and explosive devices used in air bags). Therefore, if one of your seats is installed in a vehicle during manufacture, the vehicle manufacturer is responsible for certifying that the completed vehicle complies with all applicable standards, including Standard No. 208. If the seat is added to a new, previously certified, motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer. An alterer is required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration.

Finally, if the seat is sold as aftermarket equipment to be installed in a used motor vehicle, the seat, as a piece of equipment, does not have to comply with any Federal standards. However, S108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act provides, in pertinent part:

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 ....

Therefore, none of these entities could install one of your seats if it caused the vehicle to no longer comply with any of the safety standards.

In all of these situations, you, as the seat manufacturer, would have no certification responsibilities under Standard No. 208. Therefore, with respect to that standard, the remainder of the discussion in this letter is applicable to vehicle manufacturers (including alterers).

Each of this agency's safety standards specifies the test conditions and procedures that this agency will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) precisely follows each of the specified test procedures and conditions when conducting its compliance testing. However, a manufacturer is not required to test its products only in the manner specified in the relevant safety standard, or even to test the products at all. A manufacturer may choose any means of evaluating its products to determine whether the vehicle complies with the requirements of the safety standards, provided, however, that the manufacturer assures that the vehicle will comply with the safety standards when tested by the agency according to the procedures specified in the standard.

Under certain circumstances, particularly if the agency testing shows an apparent noncompliance exists in a vehicle, the manufacturer may be asked to show the basis for its certification that the vehicle complies with the relevant safety standard or standards. If in fact there is a noncompliance, the manufacturer is subject to civil penalties under the Safety Act unless it can establish that it exercised "due care" in the design and manufacture of the product and in the evaluation (through actual testing, computer simulation, engineering analyses, or other means) to ensure compliance, but nevertheless did not have reason to know that the vehicle did not in fact comply with the safety standards.

This agency has long said that it is unable to judge what efforts would constitute "due care" in advance of the actual circumstances in which a noncompliance occurs. What constitutes "due care" in a particular case depends on all relevant facts, including such things as the limitations of current technology, the availability of test equipment, the size of the manufacturer, and, above all, the diligence exercised by the manufacturer. You should also note that, while the exercise of "due care" may relieve a manufacturer of liability for civil penalties in connection with the manufacture and sale of noncomplying vehicles, it does not relieve a manufacturer of the responsibility to notify purchasers of the noncompliance and remedy the noncompliance without charge to the purchasers, if either the manufacturer or this agency determines that vehicles do not comply with all applicable safety standards.

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

ID: nht68-2.9

DATE: 06/24/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph R. O'Gorman; NHTSA

TO: Selma Trailer and Manufacturing Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of May 2, 1968, which included additional information for certification under Public Law 89-563 and your coments.

You will note that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 does not restrict the height of the identification lamps from the roadway. You may find it suitable to mount these lights at a lower level than indicated in your illustrations.

With respect to the requirements of Standard No. 103, I must point out that this Bureau does not issue approvals on items of lighting equipment or on vehicle designs incorporating this equipment. Therefore, the above comments are for your information only and in no way relieve the vehicle manufacture from his responsibility for certifying that the assembled vehicle meets the requirements of the standard.

I am enclosing a copy of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 which defines the vehicles to which it applies.

ID: 2514y

Ms. Marcia M. Avis
1697 Latham
Birmingham, MI 48009

Dear Ms. Avis:

This responds to your letter to this agency asking about Federal regulations that apply to "an accessory seat pad" for booster seats and child restraint systems. I regret the delay in responding.

Your letter describes your product as a fabric seat cushion which is intended to provide comfort and head support to a child when the child is sleeping in the restraint system. You state that the cushion would be "held in place" on the seat with "the strap system inherent to the booster seat along with the weight of the child on the seat."

There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that is directly applicable to the product you wish to manufacture and sell. Our standard for child restraint systems (Standard No. 213) applies only to new systems and not to aftermarket components of a child restraint system, such as an aftermarket seat-pad.

However, there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect your manufacture and sale of the seat-pad. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your seat-pads contain a safety related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

If your product would be installed by commercial businesses instead of child seat owners, those businesses would have to do so in a manner consistent with section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act. The provision states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ..." Thus, this provision prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair businesses (i.e., any person holding him or herself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation) from installing your seat-pad if the addition of your product would negatively affect the compliance of a child restraint with Standard 213 and if the installing business were aware of that effect.

There are elements of design incorporated in a child restraint system pursuant to Standard 213 that may be affected by installation of a seat-pad. For example, Standard 213 sets flame-retardant performance requirements for materials used in a child restraint system. (See paragraph S5.7 of Standard 213, referencing Standard 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (copy enclosed).) Installation of rapidly burning materials could vitiate the compliance of the child restraint with FMVSS No. 213. Section 109 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of 108.

In addition, Standard 213 sets crash protection requirements for all new child restraint systems. It is unclear from your letter whether the seat-pad has provision for passing the belt systems of a child restraint around or through the pad and cushion. If the installation of your seat-pad would impair the function of a belt installed to restrain the child, then any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business installing the seat-pad would likely be regarded as having knowingly rendered inoperative a Federally required element of design in child restraint systems, in violation of 108(a)(2)(A).

The prohibitions of 108(a)(2)(A) do not apply to the actions of a vehicle owner in adding to or otherwise modifying his or her vehicle or motor vehicle equipment. Nevertheless, this agency urges you to voluntarily ensure that your seat-pad would not render inoperative the crash protection and flammability resistance of any child restraint.

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

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

/ref:213 d:5/3l/90

ID: aiam3213

Dear Mr. Brinks: This is in further reply to your earlier questions concerning Federa requirements for fuel systems on motorcycles. As stated in our previous letter, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75, *Fuel System Integrity* (49 CFR 571.301-75), does not apply to motorcycles. You are correct in your assumption that there are no Federal regulations that would preclude the use of fiberglass fuel tanks for motorcycles. I might add that Safety Standard No. 301-75 does not specify design requirements for any vehicles (e.g., that the tank be made of metal or any particular material). Rather, the standard specifies performance levels that the entire fuel system must achieve during barrier crash tests.; Although no safety standards or other regulations preclude the use o fiberglass fuel tanks for motorcycles, you should still be responsible for assuring that such tanks are safe. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, amended 1974, a manufacturer of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment is responsible for any defect relating to motor vehicle safety which may exist in the manufacturer's product (15 U.S.C. 1411, *et seq*.). The manufacturer would be required to notify all purchasers of the existence of the defect and to remedy the defect at the manufacturer's expense.; I might point out that the agency is concerned that fiberglass fue tanks will shatter upon impact in a collision, rather than crushing as do metal tanks. If you have any crash data regarding the performance of fiberglass motorcycle fuel tanks, we would appreciate receiving the information.; I hope this has answered all your questions. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel