ID: 2871o

CERTIFIED MAIL -- RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Mr. Alberto Negro Director Fiat Research & Development -- U.S.A. Branch Parklane Towers West Suite 1210 Dearborn, MI 48126

Dear Mr. Negro:

This responds both to your revised report, dated January 20, 1988, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. Part 585, on behalf of Alfa Lancia Industriale S.p.A. (Alfa Romeo), covering compliance with the automatic restraint "phase-in" requirements during the 1987 production year, and to your February 4, 1988, letter to Stephen Wood, our Assistant Chief Counsel for Rulemaking, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). Specifically, your question concerns whether Fiat may exclude automatic restraint-equipped convertibles from its determinations of annual production for the purpose of calculating the number of passenger cars that must comply with the automatic restraints requirements during the phase-in period.

Alfa Romeo, a subsidiary of Fiat, equipped some of its convertibles with automatic restraints during the 1987 model year, and Fiat counted those convertibles toward satisfying the requirement that 10 percent of 1987 production year cars be equipped with automatic restraints. You stated in your February 4 letter that you need clarification of whether Standard No. 208 permits you to exclude from your annual production calculations those convertibles that were equipped with automatic restraints and that were counted in determining whether the requisite percentage of production complied with the automatic restraint requirements. In other words, you wish to know whether Fiat may "count" Alfa Romeo convertibles equipped with automatic seat belts for the purpose of satisfying the 10% "phase-in" requirement for production year 1987, found at S4.1.3.1.2 of Standard No. 208, while excluding those same convertibles from the annual vehicle production calculations covering the 1987 production year.

The answer to your question is that Standard No. 208 does not allow Fiat to exclude from its annual production calculations any convertibles that comply with the automatic restraint requirements set forth in S4.1.2.1 of the standard. Section S4.1.3.1.2 of Standard No. 208 specifies the amount of passenger cars that must comply with the automatic restraint requirements of S4.1.2.1 shall be not less than 10 percent of either the manufacturer's average annual production between September 1, 1983, and August 31, 1986, or the manufacturer's annual production between September 1, 1985, and August 31, 1986. Under these provisions, Fiat elected to use the average annual production from September 1, 1983, through August 31, 1986, for its 1987 production year report. The reference to production encompasses all passenger cars produced by the manufacturer during the relevant time period. Thus, absent an exception to S4.1.3.1.2, a manufacturer may not exclude any of its cars in determining either average annual production or annual production.

For the period of September 1, 1986, to August 31, 1987, section S4.1.3.1.3 of Standard No. 208 provides a single exception from the requirement to include all of a manufacturer's cars in determining annual production. Under that exception, a manufacturer has the following option in calculating annual production:

A manufacturer may exclude convertibles which do not comply with the requirements of S4.1.2.1, when it is calculating its average annual production under S4.1.3.1.2(a) or its annual production under S4.1.3.1.2(b). (Emphasis added.)

The same single exception is set forth in section S4.1.3.2.3 for the September 1, 1987, to August 31, 1988 production year, and in section S4.1.3.3.3 for the September 1, 1988, to August 31, 1989 production year. This exception expressly permits manufacturers to exclude convertibles that do not comply with S4.1.2.1 from such calculations. However, this language does not permit manufacturers to exclude convertibles that comply with S4.1.2.1 from such calculations.

An old principle of legal interpretation is expressed in the maxim "expressio unius est exclusio alterius"; literally, the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another. Applying this principle to Standard No. 208, one would conclude that since the standard was drafted to provide one means of excluding convertibles from calculations of annual production, the standard does not allow any other means of excluding convertibles from those calculations. In other words, since the standard allows you to exclude convertibles that do not comply with S4.1.2.1 when calculating annual production, the absence of a similar provision for convertibles that comply with S4.1.2.1 means that complying convertibles cannot be excluded.

This interpretation does not raise any questions about the January 20 report's exclusion of all convertibles produced between September 1, 1983, and August 31, 1986, since your letter states that none of those convertibles complied with S4.1.2.1. However, this interpretation does mean that Fiat cannot exclude the 803 Alfa Romeo convertibles it reported as complying with S4.1.2.1 when making its 1988 production year calculations, as required by S4.1.3.2, if Fiat again elects to base its calculations on the average annual production of passenger cars during the preceding three years, as permitted by S4.1.3.2.2(a). Similarly, if Fiat elects to base its calculations on the actual production between September 1, 1987, and August 31, 1988, as permitted by S4.1.3.2.2(b), Fiat cannot exclude convertibles that comply with the requirements of S4.1.2.1.

In this letter, we have assumed that the Alfa Romeo convertibles that are equipped with automatic seat belts are certified as complying with the automatic restraint provisions of S4.1.2.1 of Standard No. 208. If this is not the case, then Fiat may not "count" those vehicles as complying with the automatic restraint phase-in requirements of S4.1.3.1.2 of Standard No. 208. See attached letter dated April 18, 1988 to Mr. Robert Munson of Ford Motor Company. Please notify Mr. George L. Parker, NHTSA's Associate Administrator for Enforcement, within 10 business days of your receipt of this letter, whether the Alfa Romeo automatic seat belts are certified as complying with the automatic restraint requirements of S4.1.2.1 of Standard No. 208.

If you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:208#585 d:5/9/88

ID: aiam0387

Dear Mr. Hanser: This is in reply to your letter of June 10, 1971, in which you stat that you are interested in determining whether a particular child seat meets Federal requirements, and whether you may submit a sample fo (sic) us for approval.; The NHTSA does not furnish approvals, or statements that a particula product complies with an applicable Federal standard. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 et seq.) it is the responsibility of each manufacturer both to determine that his products comply with any applicable safety standard, and to certify that the product complies in accordance with section 114 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) and the Certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567, copy enclosed).; Manufacturers generally either test their products to the applicabl standards in their own facilities, or contract with an independent test laboratory to perform the appropriate tests. It is up to the manufacturer to determine what means are best suited for his particular product. You should note, however, that the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires a manufacturer to use due care both in manufacturing his products to comply with applicable standards, and ensuring that his certification that they comply is not false or misleading (Section 108). Violators of those requirements may be subject to civil penalties and other sanctions provided for in the Act (Sections 109 and 110).; A copy of the Act, with the sections specified above marked for you convenience, is enclosed. If you have any questions concerning its application to you, please write to us and we will be happy to answer them for you.; Sincerely, Clue D. Ferguson, Director, Office of Crashworthiness, Moto Vehicle Programs;

ID: aiam1390

Dear Mr. Volberding: This is in reply to your letter dated December 6, 1973, in which yo ask whether there is a distinction between the reference to the 'lowest seating position' for motorcycles in S5.1.2.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, and the reference to 'lowest seating surface' in proposed 'Fields of Direct View' (Docket No. 70-7, Notice 2, 37 FR 7210, April 12, 1972). You also request an explanation for the difference between the reference to 15 inches above the seating surface in Standard No. 205, and 18 inches in Docket No. 70-7.; The notice in Docket No. 70-7, as you may know, has been withdrawn (3 FR 6194, March 7, 1973). However, we would consider the phrase 'lowest seating position' to be synonymous with 'lowest seating surface' with respect to these particular items. The 18-inch requirement proposed in Docket No. 70-7 represented a more recent evaluation than the 15-inch requirement in Standard No. 205 of the minimum desirable area for motorcycle visibility. Had that requirement become effective the agency would have taken steps to ensure that the requirements were consistent with each other.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: 1985-03.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/18/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Kathryn L. Samuelson, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Kathryn L. Samuelson, Esq. Assistant City Attorney City of Champaign 102 North Neil Street Champaign, Illinois 61820

Dear Ms. Samuelson:

Thank you for your letter of June 4, 1985, to Mr. Gary Butler of our Region V office, which was forwarded to my office for reply. You asked whether Federal law requires safety belts to be installed end used in several types of vehicles. I understand from conversations between my staff and Mr. Butler that Your question is related to the provision of Illinois' belt use law which exempts a person operating "a motor vehicle which is not required to be equipped with seat safety belts under federal law" from the safety belt use requirement. I hope the following discussion is of assistance to you in your effort to ensure that the City of Champaign is in compliance with Illinois' safety belt use requirement. I believe that Illinois' law and your efforts can have an immediate and beneficial safety impact on the citizens of Champaign. I would encourage you to have all occupants of municipal vehicles wear their safety belts regardless of whether they are covered by your State's belt use requirement.

This agency has issued, under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, which requires the installation of occupant restraints, such as safety belts, in vehicles. Standard No. 208 requires only the installation of the restraints; it does not require their use. A copy of the standard is enclosed for your reference. I hope the following discussion explains how Standard No. 208 applies to each of the vehicles you mentioned.

You asked about fire trucks and public work trucks. Those vehicles would be governed by S4.2 or 4.3 of the standard, depending upon the gross vehicle weight rating of the truck. Police cars would be classified as passenger cars under our standard and currently would have to comply with the requirement of S4.1.2 of our standard.

The application of the standard to the remaining category of vehicles you asked about would depend upon their construction and use. All of our standards apply only to motor vehicles. The Vehicle Safety Act defines a motor vehicle as "any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails." (15 U.S.C. 1391(3))

In interpreting this definition, the agency has said that a vehicle which cannot exceed 20 mph and has an unusual configuration which sets it apart from the rest of the traffic is not a motor vehicle and thus does not have to comply with our standards, even if it uses the public roads. These vehicles, typically, are highway maintenance and construction equipment, lane stripers and other similar vehicles. Thus, if the snow plows, road graders and other specialized types of public work vehicles you asked about have a top speed that does not exceed 20 mph and have an unusual configuration, they would not be covered by Standard No. 208 However, if these vehicles are conventional trucks that use the public roads and have specialized work equipment mounted on them, then they would have to meet the occupant crash protection requirements set in Standard No. 208 for trucks.

If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosure

U.S. Department of Transportation

Subject: City of Champaign Request Formal Date: June 7, 1985 Opinion on Standard 208 as Relates to Municipal Vehicles

From: Donald A. Williamson Reply to Regional Administrator Attn. of: NHTSA, Region V, Homewood, IL

To: Jeffery R. Miller Chief Counsel, NOA-30 Washington, D.C.

The City of Champaign is concerned that its municipal vehicles comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208. As you know, the State of Illinois has a mandatory safety belt use law which goes into effect July 1, 1985. Apparently, the City would like to advise its employees to comply with the State law when in vehicles that are required to be equipped with safety belts.

Please review the attached letter and prepare the appropriate agency response. If additional information is needed, please contact me. I appreciate your attention to this request.

Donald A. Williamson

CITY OF CHAMPAIGN

June 4, 1985

Mr. Gary Butler Program Manager NHTSA 18209 Dixie Highway Homewood, Illinois 60430

RE: Seat Belt Use

Dear Mr. Butler:

After my conversation with you on May 20, 1985, Mr. Stavins, the City Attorney, asked that I write you and ask that you send us a written opinion in relation to certain types of municipal vehicles. We would appreciate a written opinion on whether or not federal law requires seat belts to be installed and used in the following types of vehicles:

1. Fire trucks 2. Squad cars 3. Snow plows 4. Road graders 5. Other specialized types of public work vehicles 6. Public works trucks

Your prompt attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated. Very truly yours, Kathryn L. Samuelson Assistant City Attorney KLS:eb

ID: swivelinglamp.3

[ ]

Dear [ ]:

This responds to your letter, in which you ask how a swiveling lamp, incorporated as original equipment in a new vehicles headlight assembly but with its own on-off switch, would be characterized under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Your letter states that the swiveling lamp is designed to automatically enhance illumination around corners and through curves, so as to improve a drivers ability to see pedestrians, bicycles, and other objects that may be in the roadway. Specifically you ask whether the swiveling lamp would be "a supplemental piece of lighting equipment and therefore not directly regulated by [FMVSS No. 108]."For the reasons below, we have concluded that the swiveling lamp you have described would be a component of the required headlighting system under FMVSS No. 108. Consequently, its installation on a motor vehicle would violate those provisions of the standard that limit a replaceable bulb headlamp to having no more than two replaceable light sources.

You have requested that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) accord your letter confidential treatment because it includes proprietary commercial information. We note your attorneys consent on your behalf that your interpretation request letter and our interpretation may be made public, provided that all information identifying you and your company are deleted. We shall follow this procedure, which will adequately describe the device to allow a reader to understand just what this interpretation covers.

Your letter states that the vehicles complete front lighting system will include all of the forward lighting equipment required by FMVSS No. 108, as well as the swiveling lamp, as depicted in the attachments to your letter. However, the swiveling lamp would

use a different light source and reflector than any of the other functions, and it is controllable by a manual on-off switch on the dashboard that is independent of the switch for operation of the vehicles standard headlamps. Once engaged, activation of the swiveling lamp is a function of transmission position (i.e., the vehicle must be in neutral or a forward driving position) and of the state of the vehicles headlamp switch (i.e., low or high beams must be engaged). Horizontal aim of the swiveling lamp is determined by both vehicle speed and steering input.

Your letter further states that the swiveling lamp has been designed to aim its light output downward and to the side, so as to be distinct from and to not affect the brightness or visibility of any turn signal. According to your letter, the swiveling lamp has also been "designed to minimize glare to other drivers."

Paragraph S7 of FMVSS No. 108, Headlighting requirements, requires vehicles to be equipped with one of several permissible headlighting system options, whose specifications are set forth in the standard. Headlighting systems are comprised of headlamps and associated hardware. The standard sets its performance requirements for headlamps, in part, through reference to the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Standard No. J1383 (Performance Requirements for Motor Vehicle Headlamps; April 1985).

Under 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." This limitation on the number of light sources was contained in a final rule published on May 22, 1985, that amended FMVSS No. 108 (50 FR 21052).

We note that subsequent to that time, NHTSA has engaged in rulemaking seeking to develop more performance-oriented and less design-restrictive headlighting requirements; [1] however, the proposed system specifying roadway illumination requirements was found to be complex, and there were questions as to whether the uncertain potential benefits justified the perceived regulatory burdens. Consequently, the rulemaking was terminated, [2] and FMVSS No. 108s existing requirements were retained, including the limitation on the number of replaceable light sources. NHTSA stated that it would be willing to revisit the issue of more performance-oriented changes to FMVSS No. 108 through the regulatory process, perhaps through negotiated rulemaking. [3]

In determining whether the swiveling lamp is part of a headlamp system or a supplemental piece of lighting equipment, an important consideration is where the swiveling lamp directs its light. According to section 2.1 of SAE J1383, a "headlamp" is defined as "a lighting device providing an upper and/or a lower beam used for providing illumination forward of the vehicle." Your swiveling lamp would provide illumination forward of the vehicle when a turn of a sufficient magnitude is executed, which is consistent with the headlighting function.

Based upon its function, we view your lamp as a type of Adaptive Frontal-lighting System (AFS). AFSs are systems that can actively change the intensity and direction of headlamp illumination in response to changes in vehicle speed or roadway geometry, such as providing more light during a turn. We note that the agency published a request for comments on the AFS issue in the Federal Register on February 12, 2003 (68 FR 7101).

Other governments and organizations support the position that lamps that bend light in the direction of a turn are adaptive frontal-lighting systems. In order to allow introduction of this new headlighting technology in Europe, regulations are currently being modified under the auspices of the UN Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) (see ECE R112 A2). SAE has also issued a draft standard J2591 (Adaptive Forward Lighting System) that characterizes swiveling lamps as part of the headlighting system.

Beyond the fundamental matter of where the light emitted by the swiveling lamp is directed, other factors also lead us to conclude that the swiveling lamp is part of the headlighting system. We note that the swiveling lamp you describe uses a headlamp replaceable light source to emit a beam that provides significantly more light flux than supplemental cornering lamps or fog lamps designed to conform to applicable SAE standards. In addition, when operated as intended, the use of cornering lamps and fog lamps is limited to more narrow driving conditions and situations; in contrast, your swiveling lamps are presumably intended to be used regularly, since turning is a routine part of driving. We do not find the inclusion of a manual on-off switch (which can be left on indefinitely) to be a dispositive indicator that the swiveling lamp is a piece of supplemental lighting equipment.

For the above reasons, we have concluded that the swiveling lamp described in your letter is an integral part of the headlighting system, and as such, it would cause the headlighting system to exceed the maximum number of permissible light sources under paragraph S7.5 of FMVSS No. 108. Consequently, the swiveling lamp described in your letter would not meet the requirements of the standard.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.1/21/04





---

[1] See 54 FR 20084 (May 9, 1989).

[2]  See 60 FR 58038 (November 24, 1995).

[3] Id. at 58039.

ID: nht75-2.46

DATE: 06/09/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. C. Schultz; NHTSA

TO: Wesbar Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 13, 1975, requesting an interpretation of paragraph S4.4.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it applies to a described lamp design.

In pertinent part, S4.4.1 states that "no clearance lamp may be combined optically with any taillamp." The lamp design that interests you has separate compartments for the taillamp and for the clearance lamp. You are concerned that at a distance it will be difficult to distinguish the two lamps, and you feel that this violates the spirit of S4.4.1.

We have no objection to the design of this lamp. Since the clearance lamp and taillamp are in separate compartments and not optically combined, and since Standard No. 108 does not specify a minimum separation distance between the two lamps, the lamp design does not violate S4.4.1.

SINCERELY,

(Graphics omitted) See illustration on original

May 13, 1975

Richard B. Dyson, Active Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Wesbar Corporation is a manufacturer of lights, primarily used on boat trallers and utility trallers. We have received from a number of our customers an inquiry as to the possibility of making a tall light similar to the attached sketch, which would serve then as a tall light, stop light, turn signal, reflex reflector, and clearance light.

We have taken the position that a light of this type would not meet the spirit of DOT 108, paragraph S 4.4.1, which states, "Two or more lamps, reflective devices, or items of associated equipment may be combined if the requirements for each lamp, reflective device, and item of associated equipment are met, except that no clearance lamp may be combined optically with any tall lamp or identification lamp."

A light of the design we indicate on the enclosed drawing would include a separate compartment for the tall, stop and turn light and a separate compartment for the clearance lamp. However, at a distance of 30 or 40 feet to the rear of the vehicle, it would be very difficult to make a distinction between the tall light and the clearance lamp, except possibly by doing some design work on having a different configuration to the lens on the clearance lamp.

We do not wish to be in the position of second guessing your department's interpretation of S 4.4.1 and would therefore appreciate your comments and interpretation of that section. On receipt of same, we will send a copy of this interpretation to the manufacturers who have made these inquires of us.

Your early attention in this matter will be very much appreciated.

WESBAR CORPORATION

Bernard R. Weber Executive Vice President

SINGLE HOUSING WITH SEPARATE COMPARTMENTS FOR EACH LIGHT

TAIL, STOP & TURN SIGNAL LIGHT

CLEARANCE LIGHT

CLASS "A" REFLEX REFLECTOR

1/8" APPROX. BETWEEN ALL LENSES

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht92-6.48

DATE: May 19, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Anne Volmerange

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/2/92 from Anne Volmerange to Mr. Harper (OCC 7237)

TEXT:

I have been asked to respond to your letter to Mr. Clarke Harper of our Rulemaking division. Your letter requests authorization from NHTSA to replace the automatic two-point shoulder belt installed in your vehicle with a manual lap/shoulder belt. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations to you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR S571.208). Standard No. 208 sets forth requirements for safety belt installation in all vehicle types. In addition, S4.1.4.1 of Standard No. 208 provides that passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989 must be equipped with automatic crash protection. Vehicles equipped with automatic crash protection protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, when tested by this agency in a 30 mph barrier crash test.

At this time, manufacturers are not required to use a specific design of automatic crash protection to meet the requirements of Standard No. 208. Instead, each automobile manufacturer is allowed to select the particular design for the automatic crash protection installed in its vehicles. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used). There are several different designs of automatic belts available, and many manufacturers are installing air bags accompanied by conventional manual lap/shoulder safety belts. Based on your description, it appears that the manufacturer of your vehicle has chosen to install diagonal automatic shoulder belts at the front outboard seating positions. The manufacturer has certified that, in a 30 mph frontal crash into a concrete barrier, a test dummy restrained only by the automatic belt in your car would not experience injury-producing forces in excess of the levels specified in Standard No. 208.

After a vehicle equipped with automatic crash protection has been sold to a retail purchaser, such as yourself, the provision in Federal law that affects modifications to the automatic crash protection system is section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part,

any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

With regard to your vehicle, the automatic safety belts are a "device or element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard." Removal of the automatic belts would render them inoperative. Therefore, Federal law prohibits your dealer, any other dealer, and any manufacturer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business from removing the existing automatic belts in your car and replacing them with manual belts.

Please note that this Federal prohibition does not prevent you from removing the automatic belts from your own car. However, we encourage vehicle owners not to tamper with the occupant protection systems installed in their vehicles. If you were to remove the automatic belts yourself and improperly install manual belts, you would be putting yourself and other vehicle occupants at substantially greater risk of injury in a crash.

I hope you find this in 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: nht95-2.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 23, 1995

FROM: Mary J. Gazich -- Owner - Clever Kids, inc.

TO: Phillip Recht -- Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/19/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO MARY J. GAZICH (A43; REDBOOK 2; VSA 102(4))

TEXT: Dear Mr. Recht:

My company will be marketing a new automobile accessory for children.

The "Smart Rider" is a seat back protector that is made of vinyl with two 3/4" elastic bands attached. There is a design screenprinted on the vinyl as well. This product slips over either, or both of the front seats, protects the seat back interior from kid's feet, and entertains children riding in the back seat.

Please inform me if this product meets the standards for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. If so, do we need to make a statement regarding this on our packaging?

Thank you.

ID: nht92-6.26

DATE: May 29, 1992

FROM: Berkley C. Sweet -- Vice-President, School Bus Manufacturers Institute

TO: Barry Felrice -- Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, NHTSA

TITLE: Subject: Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/28/92 from Paul J. Rice to Berkley C. Sweet (A39; Part 571.3)

TEXT:

Based on the requirements specified in the Standard No. 222 for Seat Performance Forward, Seat Performance Rearward and the Head Protection Zone, what was the minimum size of the passenger (eight and height) used to establish the design criteria of this standard?

Several school districts are now transporting new born and under school-age children with their parents to a school that provides a day-care service, while the parent attends classes.

The School Bus Manufacturers Institute has received inquiries as to limits, if any, on passenger size and age that can be safely transported on school bus seats.

ID: nht90-2.67

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/31/90

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: WILLIAM D. FALCON -- COMMISSION ON ACCREDITATION FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 01/30/89 FROM WILLIAM D. FALCON TO RALPH HITCHCOCK -- NHTSA; OCC 3107; LETTER FROM STEVE CROWELL; DATED 11/02/88 EST; LETTER FROM STEVEN CROWELL DATED 06/02/88 TO ELIZABETH DENNISTON -- EGOH BITTNER COMMISIONER WALTHAM MASSACHUSETT S

TEXT: This responds to your letter to our agency concerning your law enforcement standard (71.4.1) for an interior partition you call a "safety barrier." I regret the delay in responding.

The copy of 71.4.1 you provided states: "Vehicles used primarily for transporting prisoners (80 percent of their use) should have the driver separated from the prisoner by a safety barrier." The "commentary" to 71.4.1 states that, "The safety barrier may be of wire mesh or heavy gauge plastic to prevent the prisoner from having access to the driver's compartment . . ." Mr. Steven Crowell wrote you last year suggesting that this commentary should be revised to state: "The safety barrier must be one which has had a label or tag affixed to it which certifies compliance with all applicable" Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's). Mr. Crowell believes such certification is required by Federal law, and apparently bases this on our September 13, 19 85 letter to him. You ask whether his understanding is correct.

Mr. Crowell is not entirely correct in his understanding of our certification requirements. Our regulations do not generally require materials in safety barriers to be certified, except for glazing materials in barriers. Standard No. 205, Glazing Mater ials, applies to all glazing installed in a motor vehicle, including the glazing used for an interior partition. The standard does not require labels or tags to certify the compliance of the glazing material with it. However, the standard does require that glazing material in a barrier must bear a mark to certify compliance with the standard. Standard No. 205 is the only FMVSS that applies directly to interior partitions (and only if the partition contains glazing material). There is no other FMVSS to which the partition itself would be certified.

Since glazing material in safety barriers need not be certified by labels or tags, and because safety barriers made from materials other than glazing materials are not certified under Federal law, we believe 71.4.1's seeking to require affixing a certifi cation label or tag on the barriers may engender confusion about NHTSA's requirements. We note also

that there is no Federal requirement for persons to certify modifications made to used vehicles. Therefore, we recommend against 71.4.1's seeking to require certifications in the form of labels or tags affixed to safety barriers installed in new or used vehicles.

However, we agree with Mr. Crowell that safety barriers should be installed in a safe manner, and believe that our regulations promote this to the extent possible under the Vehicle Safety Act. If a new vehicle is altered by the installation of a partiti on as original equipment (prior to the vehicle's first sale to a consumer), the person making the installation would be required by 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, to certify (by attaching a label to the vehicle) that the vehicle complies with all applic able FMVSS's. These FMVSS's include the standards for head restraints (Standard 202), interior impact protection (201), rearview mirrors (111), and crash protection (208).

We know of no reason why a suitable partition can't be developed which could be placed in a vehicle equipped with head restraints and shoulder belts. Further, it does not seem to be a difficult matter for the barrier to be installed so that the vehicle would meet Standard 111's requirements for rearview mirrors.

On the other hand, installation of the barrier could interfere with the compliance of the back of the front seat with Standard 201 (copy enclosed). Paragraph S3.2 of that standard sets energy-absorption requirements for the back of the front seat to prot ect the heads of rear seat occupants thrown forward in a crash. The partition design should be capable of meeting Standard 201's requirements for energy absorption and should not be hazardous to head impact.

If the safety barrier were installed on a used vehicle by a vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, the installer would be subject to a civil penalty of $ 1,000 per violation if he knowingly rendered inoperative the compliance of th e vehicle with any safety standard. This prohibition is contained in @ 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act.

The prohibition of @ 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who alter their own vehicles. Thus, under Federal law, they may install or remove any items of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal moto r vehicle safety standards.

Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, such as the safety barrier you described, also have responsibilities under the Vehicle Safety Act regarding safety defects and noncompliances in their products. Under @ 151 et seq., they must notify purchasers a bout safety-related defects and noncompliances and remedy the product free of charge. The Safety Act imposes a civil penalty of $ 1,000 per violation upon any manufacturer who fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect or noncompliance in i ts motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment.

In view of the fact that a police department may alter its own vehicles without regard to @ 108(a)(2)(A), we believe Mr. Crowell might be suggesting that 71.4.1 recommend that the safety barrier should be installed in a manner that does not negatively af fect the compliance of the vehicle with applicable FMVSS's. NHTSA generally encourages vehicle owners not to remove safety equipment or otherwise alter their vehicles if the modification would degrade the safety of the vehicle. Therefore, while we do n ot agree with Mr. Crowell that you should seek to require affixed certification labels or tags for barriers, we agree that installation of the barrier should be done in a manner that avoids degrading the overall safety of the vehicle.

I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE