ID: nht81-1.19

DATE: 02/19/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Toyota Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

FEB 19 1981

NOA-30

Mr. Jiro Kawano General Manager U.S. Representative Office Toyota Motor Co., Ltd. One Harmon Plaza Secaucus, NJ 07094

Dear Mr. Kawano:

This responds to your recent letter regarding a new emergency locking retractor design that incorporates, within the retractor housing, a separate webbing lock mechanism. You ask for confirmation that the one-inch locking requirement of S4.a(j)(1) of Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, applies only to the retractor itself and not to a separate webbing lock that is incorporated in the retractor housing.

Your interpretation is correct. Provided the retractor as a whole complies with the one-inch locking requirement of S4.3(j)(1), the webbing lock is permissible and would not have to comply with the requirement as a separate component. The agency would view the webbing locking device as a voluntary component not required by the standard.

We have recently issued an interpretation to the American Testing Company which deals with a similar subject. That interpretation discusses the requirements of S4.3(j) as applicable to dual sensitive retractors (i.e., retractors that have both vehicle sensitive and webbing sensitive mechanisms). I am enclosing a copy of that interpretation for your information. It explains more fully the requirements of section S4.3(j). If you have any further questions after reviewing this information, please feel free to contact Hugh Oates of my staff (202-426-2992).

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

December 1, 1980

Frank Berndt, Esquire Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This is to seek confirmation of our interpretation of FMVSS 209 paragraph S4.3(j)(1) as it applies to a new emergency locking retractor (ELR) design which incorporates, within the same housing, a separate webbing lock.

As we explained in our September 30, 1980 informal meeting with Mr. Ralph Hitchcock and others of the NHTSA staff, this additional webbing lock improves overall seat belt performance and, for space and weight saving considerations, is built into the same housing as the ELR itself.

Therefore, we ask NHTSA to confirm that the one (1) inch locking requirement of paragraph S4.3(j)(1) of FMVSS 209 applies only to the ELR itself, and not to a separate webbing lock that may physically be incorporated into the same housing as the ELR.

We trust you will treat the above as confidential and should you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact our counsel, Donald M. Schwentker, at (262) 347-6007.

Sincerely,

TOYOTA MOTOR CO., LTD.

Jiro Kawano General Manager U. S. Representative Office

JK:dd

cc: Donald M. Schwentker

ID: nht80-2.10

DATE: 04/22/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Union Springs Central School District

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

APR 22 1980

Steven J. Kalies, Ed.D Asst. Supt. for Business Union Springs Central School District Union Springs, New York 13160

Dear Dr. Kalies:

This is in response to your letter of January 22, 1980, asking whether the Dubl-Life Saver Support restraint vest manufactured by Easy Way Products Co. is in compliance with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The advertisement you enclosed with your letter describes the Dubl-Life Saver as a support restraint vest for the safe transportation of all sizes of handicapped children in motor vehicles. The advertisement further claims that the safety belts used with the vest exceed "federal specifications".

Based on the information in the advertisement, it appears that the restraint vest does not provide pelvic restraint and thus does not comply with Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. I have referred this matter to the agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance for appropriate action.

The University of Michigan's Highway Safety Research Institute has conducted tests of various devices used to restrain handicapped children. I have enclosed a copy of a Society of Automotive Engineers paper describing the results of the testing.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

January 22, 1980

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of Chief Counsel 400 7th St., S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Gentlemen:

As requested in the attached letter from Mr. Irving Rodness, Motor Vehicle Program Specialist, we are enclosing a copy of the brochure concerning the Dubl-Life Saver Support restraint vest from Easy Way Products Co.

Please advise as soon as possible if this vest meets federal specifications, as stated in the attached brochure.

Sincerely,

Steven J. Kalies, Ed.D Asst. Supt. for Business

jf Enc.

January 18, 1980

Mr. Steven J. Kalies Union Springs Central School District Union Springs, New York 13160

Dear Mr. Kalies:

During our telephone conversation, I envisioned the device you described being covered by our Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. By the description on the price sheet you enclosed in your letter of 1/8/80, I am now not too sure. This device may not be covered at all or is covered under our FMVSS 213, Child Restraint.

After a conversation with the NHTSA's Office of Chief Counsel, I am taking the liberty of forwarding your letter to them for their review and response. It would be helpful if a brochure or picture of this device could be sent to our Washington Office. If available, mail it to: NHTSA, Office of Chief Counsel (NOA-30), 400 7th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590, ATTN: Mr. Stephen L. Oesch. Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.

Sincerely,

Irving Rodness Motor Vehice Program Specialist

cc: OCC NOA-30

ID: 7505

Captain Robert A. Dewey
Rochester Police Department
Research and Evaluation Section
Civic Center Plaza
Rochester, NY 14614

Dear Captain Dewey:

This responds to your letter of July 6, 1992, inquiring whether a device on your newly acquired police vehicles "which requires the operator to depress the brake pedal in order to remove the car from the park position with the shift lever" is required by Federal law or regulation, and whether you may deactivate the device.

You explained in your letter that the Rochester Police Department has recently acquired 46 new police vehicles, each equipped with a device that requires the brake pedal to be depressed before the transmission can be shifted out of the park position. You stated that you were told by a local Ford dealer that the device was required by a Federal safety standard. You indicated that you recognize the safety advantage of such a feature for the general public, but you see some negative safety implications for police vehicle operators. For example, you believe that an officer under fire could be delayed by this device in responding to the situation. You are also concerned that the presence of the device on some but not all of your vehicles may cause confusion among your officers who drive different cars every day.

Please be advised that the device in question is not required by Federal law or regulation. However, the vast majority of new passenger cars have this safety feature, which is intended to ensure that the driver's foot is on the brake pedal before the automatic transmission can be shifted from the "park" position. I have enclosed for your information a copy of a recent article concerning these devices which appeared in the Detroit News.

Since these devices are not required by any Federal motor vehicle safety standard, there is no Federal requirement that prohibits you or a dealer from deactivating the device. If you decide to deactivate the device, however, we suggest that you consult with the manufacturer concerning how the device can be deactivated without otherwise affecting the vehicle.

I trust this will clarify the matter for you. If you have any further questions on this issue, feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366- 2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:102 d:8/20/92

ID: aiam0110

Dear Commander Heath: This is in response to your letter of August 19 inquiring as to th certification responsibility of manufacturers of assemblers of dune buggy kits with respect to conformance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. But the issue you raise is far broader and involves the whole area of owner-assembled motor vehicles.; You have stated:>>>It is our interpretation that Federal Standard 10 is not applicable to dune buggies that are owner-constructed or reconstructed for the builders personal use.'<<<; This interpretation is incorrect. It is a violation of sectio 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 for any person to:; >>>'...introduce or deliver for introduction in interstat commerce...any motor vehicle...manufactured [or assembled] on and after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect...unless it is in conformity with such standard...'<<<; This means that the final assembler of a dune buggy, whoever he is must insure that the completed vehicle conforms to all applicable Standards including No. 108. In the case of dune buggies, this means Standards applicable to multipurpose passenger vehicles since a dune buggy is 'constructed...with special features for occasional off-road operation.' (23 C.F.R. S255.3(b)).; It is our understanding that a dune buggy consists of a newl manufactured body mounted on the modified chassis of a passenger car previously in use. An issue is raised by the facts that dune buggies are assembled from both new and used items of motor vehicle equipment and that there is language in the Act which appears to exempt 'any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment after the first purchase of it in good faith for purposes other than resale' (section 108(b)(1). However, since the modification involving used components goes far beyond customizing a used vehicle and results in the end product having a different classification under the Federal Standards and a different purpose than the original vehicle a dune buggy is a 'new' motor vehicle for purposes of the Act.; Continuing your interpretation you further state: >>>'However, those sold as kits or by a manufacturer are required t comply with Federal Standard 108.'<<<; Only assembled vehicles are required to conform to most Federa Standards including No. 108, and there is no legal requirement under the Act that a kit seller furnish lighting equipment meeting the various SAE requirements specified in that Standard. Some Federal Standards, however, do establish requirements applicable to equipment items as well as to assembled vehicles. If a kit manufacturer furnishes hydraulic brake hoses (Standard No. 105), new pneumatic tires (Standard No. 109), glazing materials (Standard No. 205), seat belt assemblies (Standard No. 209), and wheel discs, wheel covers, or hub caps (Standard No. 211), then these items must conform to the applicable Standard.; Finally, there appears to be some misunderstanding of the certificatio required by section 114 of the Act. This certification is required to be furnished only by a manufacturer, or distributor, and only to a distributor or dealer upon delivery of a motor vehicle or equipment item to which a Standard or Standards are applicable. No certification is required to be given by a manufacturer to a party not a distributor or dealer. Nor is there any requirement that the assembler per se certify the vehicle. This of course, does not relieve the assembler of his independent obligation to insure that the assembled vehicle meets Federal Standards.; I hope this answers your questions. Sincerely, Robert M. O'Mahoney, Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations

ID: aiam5339

"Dear Mr. Turner: This responds to your letter of January 6, 1994 asking several questions concerning a recent amendment to Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (57 FR 49413, November 2, 1992). Our response to each of your questions follows. 1. Your first question requested confirmation that a left side emergency exit door required by S5.2.3.1(a)(2)(i) would meet the location requirements of S5.2.3.1(a)(2)(i) if it is located in the center one- half of the passenger compartment. Your question concerns the first required additional emergency exit installed on a bus with a rear emergency exit door. Section S5.2.3.2(a)(2) requires this exit to be a side emergency exit door 'located on the left side of the bus and as near as practicable to the midpoint of the passenger compartment.' Locating the door or the 12-inch required aisle opening for the door in the center one- half of the passenger compartment would not ensure compliance with this requirement. This is because it may be possible to locate a door in the center one-half without locating the exit 'as near as practicable to the midpoint of the passenger compartment.' In determining the permissible location for this exit, you should determine where the exit would be located if it was located at the midpoint of the passenger compartment. If it is not practicable to locate the exit there, you should move the door only as far as necessary for a practicable location. 2. Your second question requested confirmation that there are no fore and aft location requirements for side emergency exit doors other than the requirements for a left side emergency exit door required by S5.2.3.1(a)(2)(i). You are correct. Except for a left side emergency exit door installed as the first additional emergency exit on a bus with a rear emergency door, the only location requirements for side emergency exit doors concern the side of the bus on which the exit must be located. I have attached for your information an appendix which lists all the location requirements for additional emergency exits. 3. Your third question requested confirmation that all side emergency exit doors, including any voluntarily installed, are required to comply with the requirements of the new final rule, including the seat placement requirements in S5.4.2.1(b). You are correct. Your letter referred to a March 9, 1977 interpretation that voluntarily installed side emergency exit doors were not required to meet the school bus requirements, but were required to meet the non-school bus requirements. Previously, the school bus emergency exit door requirements in Standard No. 217 referred to 'the emergency door.' At that time school buses were required to have either one rear emergency exit door or one side emergency exit door and one rear push-out window. Thus, any school bus was required to have only one emergency exit door. The reference to 'the emergency door' was to the required door. In the recent amendments to Standard No. 217, some of the performance requirements for emergency exits apply to 'each' emergency exit. See, for example, S5.4.2.1(b). This change in the language extends these requirements to any emergency exit door in a school bus. Other requirements apply to 'required' emergency exits. See, for example, S5.5.3(c). These requirements do not apply to voluntarily installed emergency exits. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures";

ID: aiam5143

"Dear Mr. Dawkins: This responds to your letter of January 7, 1994 requesting confirmation that Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, 'would permit the sun visor air bag caution label required in S4.5.1(b) to be combined with the utility vehicle information sticker required by 49 CFR Part 575.105.' Your letter notes that you are aware that both General Motors and Ford petitioned the agency to amend S4.5.1(b)(2) of Standard No. 208, as amended by a September 2, 1993 final rule, to permit the utility vehicle label on the sun visor. A March 10, 1994, final rule responding to the petitions for reconsideration amended S4.5.1(b)(2) to allow the installation of a utility vehicle label that contains the language required by 49 CFR Part 575.105(c)(1). While the utility vehicle label will continue to be allowed on the sun visor, the language of the final rule does not allow the combination of the utility vehicle label and the air bag warning label. The September 2 and March 10 final rules specify (1) that no information other than that in the air bag maintenance label is allowed on the same side of the sun visor as the air bag warning label, and (2) that other than the air bag alert label or a utility vehicle label, no other information about air bags or the need to wear seat belts shall appear anywhere on the sun visor. Thus, the clear language of the final rules do not permit the utility vehicle label and the air bag warning label to be on the same side of the sun visor. Your letter asked the agency to treat it as a petition for rulemaking if the language of the final rules do not allow combination of the labels. You will be notified of our decision to grant or deny your petition. 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";

ID: nht93-6.42

DATE: September 21, 1993 Est.

FROM: Greg Biba

TO: Office of Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/25/93 from John Womack to Greg Biba (A41; Std. 213)

TEXT:

In talking to Dee Fujita and George Mouchahoir about safety regulation specifications, they suggested I write you for an official confirmation about my questions.

I am developing and interested in patenting an infant observation mirror for car travel. This observation mirror is not attached to the car seat. Ms. Fujita and Mr. Mouchahoir said accessories that are not a part of the car seat have no safety regulations to their knowledge. Are there any regulations that limit what I do, are there any size or material regulations?

To give you a brief description: This infant observation mirror is different than others that have patented, in that it is supported by a stand that sits under the infants car seat as the seat faces to the rear of the car.

Please write at your earliest possible convenience about my questions or if you have any additional comments.

ID: 86-6.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/01/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Alvin A. Leach

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Alvin A. Leach Manager Corporate Transportation Services Carolina Power & Light Co. PO BOX 1551 Raleigh, NC 27602

Dear Mr. Leach:

Thank you for your letter of September 5, 1986, to Administrator Steed concerning the safety belt installation requirements for heavy trucks. The Administrator has asked my office to respond since you asked for an interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. I hope the following discussion answers your questions.

You first asked whether lap/shoulder safety belts are required in a truck with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 10,000 pounds. 54.3 of the standard, a copy of which is enclosed, sets out the requirements for such trucks. S4.3 permits a manufacturer to install either a lap safety belt, referred to as a Type 1 belt in the standard, or a lap/shoulder belt, referred to as a Type 2 belt, in a heavy truck. At the present time, we do not have any plans to require lap/shoulder belts in heavy trucks. We are taking steps to improve the comfort and convenience of safety belt systems in heavy vehicles. As explained in the attached notice, the agency is currently considering several changes to the standard which would make it easier to use safety belts in heavy vehicles. We expect to issue a final rule on this subject later this year.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ms. Diane K. Steed Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S. W. Washington, DC 20590

Reference: Seat Belt Requirements for Trucks with G.V.W.R. of More Than 10,000 Pounds per Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208

Dear Ms. Stead:

I have been asked to respond to a question from one of our employees about seat belt requirements for trucks in the 20,000 pounds G.V.W. range. His question was "Why aren't our medium duty (20,000 lb. G.V.W.) trucks purchased with lap and shoulder belts like those required in cars?"

Apparently they are not required by Standard No. 208 and are not offered by the manufacturers.

I would appreciate it if you could tell me if our interpretation of Standard No. 208 is correct. I would also like to know if there are any plans to require lap and shoulder belts in this size vehicle.

Your assistance is appreciated.

Yours very truly,

Alvin A. Leach, Manager Corporate Transportation Services

ID: 11876.jeg

Mr. Dietmar K. Haenchen
Process Leader
Safety Affairs and Vehicle Testing
Volkswagen
Vehicle Regulations
Mail Code 4F02
3800 Hamlin Road
Auburn Hills, MI 48326

Dear Mr. Haenchen:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 208's sun visor labeling requirements. As noted by your letter, S4.5.1(b) requires a sun visor label with specific wording regarding certain cautions to avoid serious injury from possible air bag interactions with front seat vehicle occupants. You asked whether it is permissible to add to the sun visor label statements or references concerning side impact air bags for vehicles equipped with these devices. As discussed below, the answer is no.

You state in your letter that, in the interest of safety, Volkswagen believes it would be appropriate and desirable to add reference to side air bags to the sun visor label of vehicles equipped with these devices. You suggest adding a statement in the form of a heading, either above or below the phrase "Caution to Avoid Serious Injury," such as "This vehicle is equipped with front and side impact air bags." You also suggest adding the phrase "Front and Side Impact Air Bags" to the side of the sun visor with the air bag alert label.

Standard No. 208 specifically addresses the question of whether information in addition to the required cautions may be provided on the sun visor. S4.5.1(b)(2) provides that "(e)xcept for the information on an air bag maintenance label placed on the visor pursuant to S4.5.1(a) of this standard, no other information shall appear on the same side of the sun

visor to which the label is affixed." (Emphasis added.) That section also provides that "(e)xcept for the information in an air bag alert label placed on the visor pursuant to S4.5.1(c) of this standard, or in a utility vehicle label that contains the language required by 49 CFR 575.105(c)(1), no other information about air bags or the need to wear seat belts shall appear anywhere on the sun visor." (Emphasis added.)

You suggest in your letter that identifying phrases about side impact air bags are not really "other information" in general or "other information about air bags." However, the regulation's terms are sufficiently broad to include any references or statements about side impact air bags. I can only conclude that the highlighted language above prohibits adding to the sun visor label any references or statements about side impact air bags. I note that you can, of course, include such references or statements in locations other than the sun visor.

We believe it is appropriate, however, to consider whether particular statements on the sun visor should be permitted or required for vehicles with new kinds of air bags, such as air bags for side impact protection. In our newly issued notice of proposed rulemaking to reduce the adverse effects of air bags to children, we have specifically requested comments on that question. We would encourage you to address this issue in your comments.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin

Chief Counsel

ref:208

d:8/12/96

ID: nht92-4.29

DATE: August 20, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Robert A. Dewey -- Captain, Rochester (NY) Police Department, Research and Evaluation Section

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/6/92 from Robert A. Dewey to NHTSA, Office of Chief Counsel (OCC 7505)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of July 6, 1992, inquiring whether a device on your newly acquired police vehicles "which requires the operator to depress the brake pedal in order to remove the car from the park position with the shift lever" is required by Federal law or regulation, and whether you may deactivate the device.

You explained in your letter that the Rochester Police Department has recently acquired 46 new police vehicles, each equipped with a device that requires the brake pedal to be depressed before the transmission can be shifted out of the park position. You stated that you were told by a local Ford dealer that the device was required by a Federal safety standard. You indicated that you recognize the safety advantage of such a feature for the general public, but you see some negative safety implications for police vehicle operators. For example, you believe that an officer under fire could be delayed by this device in responding to the situation. You are also concerned that the presence of the device on some but not all of your vehicles may cause confusion among your officers who drive different cars every day.

Please be advised that the device in question is not required by Federal law or regulation. However, the vast majority of new passenger cars have this safety feature, which is intended to ensure that the driver's foot is on the brake pedal before the automatic transmission can be shifted from the "park" position. I have enclosed for your information a copy of a recent article concerning these devices which appeared in the Detroit News.

Since these devices are not required by any Federal motor vehicle safety standard, there is no Federal requirement that prohibits you or a dealer from deactivating the device. If you decide to deactivate the device, however, we suggest that you consult with the manufacturer concerning how the device can be deactivated without otherwise affecting the vehicle.

I trust this will clarify the matter for you. If you have any further questions on this issue, feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Attachment

Detroit News article entitled Automakers Quietly Add Safety Feature. (Text omitted)