ID: nht87-3.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/09/87

FROM: RICHARD J. STROHM

TO: EDWARD JETTNER -- NATIONAL HWY. TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMIN.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 07/31/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO RICHARD J. STROHM. REDBOOK A33; FMVSS 207; VSA 108 [A] [2] [4] LETTER DATED 10/07/87 FROM RICHARD J. STROHM TO CHEVROLET DIVISION; 1987 CHEVROLET CAPRICE, 1G1BL51H0HX163146, 900 0 MILES

TEXT: Gentlemen:

A General Motor's Customer Service representative referred me to your Administration when I requested that they authorize the moving of the front seat in the 1987 Chevrolet Caprice that I drive. The attached letter to Chevrolet explains the problem. Th e Customer Service Representative tells me he cannot, by law, move the seat.

Please tell me how Chevrolet can obtain authorization to move the seat in the 1987 Caprice.

Very truly yours,

Attachment

ID: 1982-3.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/08/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Lucas Industries Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 1, 1982, regarding an interpretation of the "lens area requirements of FMVSS No. 108" as applied to the high contrast lamp whose design you enclosed.

We understand that your design applies to rear lamps. The measurement for the illuminated area of a rear lamp as specified in SAE J585e, "Tail Lamps (Rear Position Lamps)," for example, is stated in part as follows:

. . . "To be considered visible, the lamp must provide an unobstructed projected illuminated area of outer lens surface. . . ."

This applies to the installation requirements, i.e., the device as used on a vehicle. It is not part of the laboratory test procedure.

Further, with regard to photometric requirements of a lamp, no measurement for the illuminated area of a rear lamp is specified in SAE test procedures.

In summary, Standard No. 108 does not prohibit Lucas from manufacturing the lamp in question, but the vehicle manufacturer must be careful to insure that the lamp, when installed, conforms to the standard's requirements for visibility of lens area.

SINCERELY,

NOVEMBER 1, 1982

Office of Chief Counsel, Room 5219 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir

Subject: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108

Our sister company, Lucas Electrical Limited, of Birmingham, England, has developed a "high contrast" lamp design for multifunction rear lamps on motor vehicles. The purpose of this letter is to seek your confirmation of our interpretation of the lens area requirements of FMVSS 108 as applicable to this design.

The Lucas high contrast design uses a conventional rear lamp bulb and reflector to direct light on to convex cylindrical lensing which is colored red, yellow or white according to the function. An opaque screen of any color having slits running in the same direction and parallel to the flutes of the lens is positioned between the inner and an outer lens. The outer lens has fluting at right angles to that of the inner lens and can be clear, tinted or of neutral density. A copy of U.S. Patent 4,241,388 is attached for more explicit information.

In operation, light from the bulb is directed as parallel rays onto the inner cylindrical lensing which focuses it through the slits in the opaque screen. After passing through the slits in the screen, the rays of light diverge and then strike the outer lens where they are refracted in a plane at right angles to the slits. To an observer, the light emitted by the lamp will be the color of the inner lens and will be in contrast to the appearance of the unilluminated lamp.

It is our interpretation that with such a lamp the projected luminous and illuminated areas requirements of FMVSS 108 are those of the outer lens rather than those of the slits behind it. We hope you will confirm this opinion.

LUCAS INDUSTRIES INC

A J Burgess Vice President (Technical)

United States Patent [19] Green

[11] 4,241,388 [45] Dec. 23, 1980

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

FIG.6.

(Graphics omitted)

ID: aiam4604

"Dear Mrs. Kozak: Thank you for your letter concerning the applicabl classification and regulation of a three-wheeled vehicle manufactured by Cushman. I was saddened to learn that your husband died while operating such a vehicle at his job. Before addressing your specific questions, I would like to provide some general background information about this agency's laws and regulations. Our agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) to issue safety standards applicable to new 'motor vehicles' and new items of 'motor vehicle equipment.' The 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. According to your letters, there are two different models of the three-wheeled Cushman vehicle. One of these models is intended solely for off-road use. This model would not be a 'motor vehicle' within the meaning of the Safety Act, so NHTSA has no authority to regulate this model. The other model is intended for use on the public roads. According to your letter, your husband was operating the on-road model at his job. The on-road model plainly appears to be a 'motor vehicle' for the purposes of the Safety Act. Cushman and every other manufacturer of motor vehicles must certify that each of their vehicles complies with all applicable safety standards. Both eighteen-wheel tractor trailers and motor scooters are 'motor vehicles' within the meaning of the Safety Act, but the safety standards specify different requirements for those two types of vehicles. To determine the applicable requirements in the safety standards, one must determine into which of several vehicle classes the vehicle in question will fall. As our Associate Administrator for Rulemaking explained in his July 25, 1988 letter to Chairman Florio, the on-road model of the Cushman three-wheeled vehicle would appear to be classified as a 'motorcycle' for the purposes of our safety standards. NHTSA has authority to regulate the manufacture and sale of motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Thus, the Safety Act prohbits any person from manufacturing, importing, or selling any new vehicle that does not comply with all applicable safety standards. See 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A). The Safety Act also required Cushman to certify that each of its on road three-wheeled vehicles conformed to all applicable safety standards. See 15 U.S.C. 1403. Additionally, the Safety Act requires Cushman to recall and repair those vehicles if either Cushman or this agency determine that the vehicles contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety. See 15 U.S.C. 1411-1419. It is the individual State, Massachusetts in this case, that has authority to regulate the operation and use of motor vehicles in that State. I would now like to respond to the particular statements and concerns expressed in your letters. Statement One: You said: 'I feel a determination should be made as to what agency should regulate the use of this vehicle on the Public Highways and the person required to operate should be warned of the hazards inherent in the unit.' (emphasis added) Response: As explained above, NHTSA cannot regulate the operation or use of these vehicles. That is a question that is entirely within the authority of the State of Massachusetts. You may wish to express to the appropriate persons in the State of Massachusetts your belief that the State ought to regulate the operation and use of these vehicles. Statement Two: You then noted that 'similar units are presently being used in the Commonwealth without a seat belt despite the fact that the Registry of Motor Vehicles considers them to be motor vehicles and not motorcycles.' Response: This statement suggests that you may have some uncertainties about the relationship of the vehicles called 'motorcycles' to the larger vehicle group called 'motor vehicles.' As explained above, for the purposes of Federal law, 'motorcycle' is a subset within the broad category of 'motor vehicles.' Other subsets of 'motor vehicles' include 'passenger car,' 'truck,' and 'bus.' Thus, for Federal purposes, all motorcycles are motor vehicles. Our July 25, 1988 letter to Chairman Florio indicated that the on-road version of the Cushman three-wheeled vehicle is a motor vehicle that would appear to be classified as a 'motorcycle.' Our safety standard that requires most motor vehicles to be equipped with safety belts or other types of occupant crash protection is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). However, this standard does not apply to vehicles classified as motorcycles. Accordingly, none of our safety standards require Cushman to install safety belts on these vehicles. Statement Three: You noted that this vehicle 'does not have a solid door, only a canvas one.' Response: Our safety standard that specifies requirements for side doors on vehicles is Standard No. 214, Side Door Strength (49 CFR 571.214). Standard No. 214 currently applies only to passenger cars. Since the vehicle in question is a 'motorcycle,' our safety standards do not require the manufacturer to provide doors on it. Statement Four: You suggested that the hospital and its employees 'were possibly subjected to a fraudulent act,' because the vehicle did not indicate a helmet is required when operating the Cushman vehicle. Response: You are correct in assuming that the State of Massachusetts has a motorcycle helmet use law for all riders. If you are interested in learning more details about that law, you may wish to contact the appropriate persons in the Massachusetts state government. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some more information on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam4580

"Dear Ms. Davison: Thank you for your letter describing you impressions of the automatic safety belts on your 1987 Toyota. I apologize for the delay in this reply. You said that this motorized automatic belt system 'takes away the roominess of the front,' because it is in the way when getting in the car with a handbag or package and that it is cumbersome to get out of the belt system. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations to you. Before I respond to your specific concerns, I would like to give you some background information on our requirement for automatic occupant protection systems in new cars. Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act in 1966 (the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), a Federal safety standard on occupant crash protection was issued in 1967 requiring the installation of manual safety belts in all new passenger vehicles. Although these manual safety belts showed their effectiveness as safety devices, only a relatively small number of motorists used their manual belts. As recently as 1984, only 12.5 percent of front seat occupants wore their manual belts. Because so few people used their manual safety belts, the Department issued the first requirement for automatic restraints in passenger cars in 1970, and it was scheduled to take effect in 1973. That implementation date was delayed for a variety of reasons. On June 24, 1983, the Supreme Court of the United States found our decision to repeal the requirement for automatic restraints was 'arbitrary and capricious,' and ordered us to reconsider the decision (Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 463 U.S. 29). Against this background, former Secretary of Transportation Dole issued a final rule amending the Federal safety standard on occupant crash protection on July 17, 1984. That decision, which promotes both automatic restraints and State safety belt use laws, provides a comprehensive approach designed to save as many lives as possible as quickly as possible. We believe that effectively enforced State laws requiring the proper use of the manual safety belts that are in most cars on the road today offer our best opportunity to save lives at virtually no cost to the consumer. The decision also reflects our belief in the value of automatic occupant protection systems, such as air bags and automatic belts, by requiring all new cars to have automatic protection starting with the 1990 model year. The decision required further that automatic protection be phased in during the three years preceding that model year. Each manufacturer was required to equip 10 percent of its model year 1987 cars with automatic restraints. That percentage rose to 25 percent for model year 1988, and 40 percent for model year 1989. However, if the Secretary determines not later than April 1, l989, that State belt use laws have been enacted that meet certain criteria and that are applicable to two-thirds of the U.S. population, then the automatic restraint requirements will be rescinded. You had three specific concerns with your automatic belt system. First, you asked if the motorized automatic belt system in your car was installed to meet some safety regulation. The answer is yes. As explained above, our Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection requires all 1990 model year cars to be equipped with automatic occupant crash protection. Please note that this requirement permits manufacturers to install any automatic occupant protection technology that meets the occupant protection requirements set forth in Standard No. 208. Thus, manufacturers may choose to install motorized, or nonmotorized, automatic safety belts, air bags, other technologies such as 'passive interiors,' or any combination of these technologies. Your second question was whether you can legally disengage the motorized mechanism on the automatic belts in your car. Section 108 of the Safety Act provides that: '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 ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ...' In this case, the automatic belts in your car are a 'device or element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard.' Disengaging the motorized mechanism would render the automatic belts inoperative. Therefore, Federal law prohibits Toyota, any other manufacturer, and any distributor, dealer, or repair shop from disengaging the motorized mechanism on your automatic belts. Please note that this Federal prohibition does not prevent you, yourself, from disengaging the motorized mechanism on your automatic belts. However, each of the individual States has the authority to regulate the modifications that may be made to vehicles by their owners and to establish requirements for vehicles to be registered or operated in that State. You may wish to contact the State of Florida to learn if they have exercised their authority to prohibit the disabling of automatic belts. Even if neither Federal nor State law prohibits you from disabling your automatic belt, we encourage vehicle owners not to tamper with the occupant crash protection systems installed in their vehicles. If you were to improperly disengage the motorized mechanism, you would put yourself, other occupants of your car and subsequent owners and users of the car at substantially greater risk of injury in a crash. Third and finally, you said that you have been told it is not safe to wear your automatic belts without also fastening the manual lap belt, because of the possibility of choking. The manual lap belt was voluntarily provided by the manufacturer of your car to provide an even higher level of crash protection for those occupants who choose to use the lap belt. However, the manufacturer of your car 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. Hence, the suggestion that the automatic belt by itself is somehow unsafe is simply not true. I would like to thank you for taking the time to express your views on this subject. We welcome the interest of all concerned citizens on this important question and appreciate this opportunity to advise you of our efforts to improve occupant crash protection for all Americans. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel ";

ID: nht92-7.30

DATE: April 23, 1992

FROM: C. Scott Thiss -- Chairman & CEO, S&W Plastics, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Congressman Jim Ramstad; Taylor Vinson

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/27/92 from Paul J. Rice to C. Scott Thiss (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

On April 16, 1992 we met with Mr. Taylor Vinson and other representatives from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to discuss a new product which we plan to manufacture and market. This meeting was initiated because of two letters sent to us on January 23, 1992 and March 31, 1992 from NHTSA, regarding objections to our aftermarket tail light product.

The purpose of this letter is to request NHTSA to formally reconsider and review its position as presented in your earlier letters.

BACKGROUND

S&W Plastics, Inc. has developed an auxiliary safety signaling device for trucks and semi-trailers. The name of this product is High Light. This product would be sold in the aftermarket to independent haulers, fleet operations and OEM suppliers.

Our master distributor, Cycle Country Accessories Corp. requested a review of this product in December 1991. Your agency responded with a letter dated January 23, 1992. In order to arrange a meeting with NHTSA S&W requested the help of Congressman Jim Ramstad's office. The response to Mr. Ramstad's letter on March 31, 1992, reiterated the objections raised in the January letter.

Because several changes had been made to the product since NHTSA's January letter, we requested a meeting with Mr. Taylor Vinson. At that meeting S&W was able to demonstrate the light, address NHTSA concerns and discuss the changes we have made.

The result was Mr. Vinson's suggestion that S&W request a reconsideration of the issues raised in previous letters.

NHTSA CONCERNS

The previous documentation provided by NHTSA raised concerns regarding High Light. These concerns centered on the issue as to whether our safety signaling device could possibly "render inoperative" the required lighting equipment on a trailer by impairing its effectiveness. Three objections were raised.

- the device did not meet the locational requirements of Standard 108, and

- the hazard warning system, by operating through the brake system, could send a confusing message to following vehicles, and

- the stop lamp signal formed an inverted "V", which could be confusing to following vehicles.

By rendering inoperative the required lighting systems, it is be a violation of Federal law for a manufacturer, dealer, distributor or repair shop to install our light. This would greatly limit our market potential and we would not proceed with production and marketing.

PRODUCT CHANGES

As we demonstrated during the meeting with Mr. Vinson, the current version of High Light has undergone several revisions. In fact, based upon comments from the meeting, we have made additional changes to more fully meet Standard 108 and to eliminate the "render inoperative" issue.

First, while our device cannot be centered exactly on the centerline of a truck or semi-trailer, it is located only slightly off-center. Because of door openings and locking mechanisms, it would be impossible for our device to be placed on centerline. Its placement slightly off center to the left makes it very visible to a following driver, who would be in a direct line of sight.

A second change is the brake light signal. We have changed the lighting configuration from an inverted "V" to only the two horizontal lights in the center. This should not create an interpretation problem.

Third, we have dropped entirely the hazard warning lighting plans. This is to avoid a confusing message. Also there are many other warning devices and signals which a driver can use to indicate a hazard situation.

CONCLUSION

Based upon our meeting with NHTSA and product changes already made, we believe High Light complies with Standard 108. We believe this product will reduce truck accidents by providing better visibility of turn signals and brake lights to following vehicles.

In order that we may proceed with the manufacture and sale of the product, we ask you to review NHTSA's previous position. S&W does not intend to consciously violate any Federal law, and therefore we request a reconsideration in writing of your objections.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

ID: nht93-9.11

DATE: December 13, 1993

FROM: Lawrence P. White -- Acting Director, Bureau of Motor Vehicles, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Dept. of Transportation

TO: Mary Versie -- NHTSA, School Bus Regulations

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/21/94 from John Womack to Lawrence P. White (A42; Redbook; Std. 217)

TEXT:

I am writing concerning the new school bus emergency exit requirements in the FMVSS 217.

My office has received numerous inquiries from Pennsylvania's law enforcement agencies, school bus sales representatives and school bus contractors, concerning the new school bus exit requirements. These questions are:

1. The effective date - is it the chassis manufacturer's date of completion, the final stage manufacturer's date of completion, or somewhere in between?

2. Based on the formula for emergency exit space, is the area of the front entrance door to be included? Does this mean on a vehicle of 60 to 77 passengers, the only additional requirements beyond the front and rear doors is a left side exit door?

3. The "clear aisle space" required for exit to the proposed side emergency door, according to federal specifications, can be met with a flip- up type seat or a clear opening of 12", as measured from the back of the door forward. Are there any specifications, definitions, or descriptions provided as to what would be considered a "flip seat"?

4. Also, there is concern regarding school buses that are equipped with the "flip seat" by the emergency door opening and the possibility of school children, either intentionally or accidentally, unlatching the door latch mechanism. Are the door latch mechanisms to be equipped to help prevent this from occurring?

In the interest of maintaining the integrity of school buses, I am inquiring as to the correct responses to these questions and concerns.

Thank you for your assistance on this matter.

ID: nht94-4.57

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 21, 1994

FROM: Donald Orlando -- Orlando World Industries

TO: Ed Glancy

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 1/5/95 from Philip Recht to Donald Orlando (A43; Std. 208; Std. 209)

TEXT: Dear Ed:

As per our telephone conversation on the "SEAT BELT BUDDY" which has been invented and developed to popularize the wearing of seat belts for children. The device is a stuffed toy [ILLEGIBLE WORDS] the center of the animal where you insert the seat belt t hrough and then into the automobile buckle.

If you have any questions please don't hesitate to call me at (914) 428-2871 or you can reach my associate [ILLEGIBLE WORDS] at (914) 686-0141

Thanking you in advance for your prompt attention to this matter.

Sincerely Yours,

ID: 11582.PJA

Mr. Christophe Malaterre
Project Manager, International
PIVCO AS
Stanseveien 4
N-0975 Oslo, Norway

Dear Mr. Malaterre:

This responds to your letter of February 8, 1996, asking how Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 102, Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect, would apply to the CityBee, an electric vehicle you produce. Specifically, you wanted to know whether your electric transmission, with one forward speed, would be regarded as a manual or an automatic transmission. As discussed below, we would consider your transmission an automatic transmission.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to ensure that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

You stated that the transmission of your vehicle only has 1 gear and a differential. In other words, there is no usual gear box. There are 3 possible modes: "drive," "neutral," "reverse." These modes are activated by an electric switch which puts on the electricity in 1 way (for drive) when activated clockwise from neutral, or the other (for reverse, counter-clockwise), or shut it off (for neutral, in middle position). The electric gear switch is located on the middle of the dashboard. The status of the gear switch is always displayed in view of the driver at all times, both on the dashboard and the instrument panel.

As you noted in your letter, Standard No. 102 specifies different requirements depending on whether a transmission is an automatic transmission or a manual transmission. You stated that your analysis leads you to the conclusion that your transmission is closer to being a simplified "manual transmission" than an "automatic transmission." However, you did not explain why you reached that conclusion.

Standard No. 102 does not include definitions for "automatic transmission" or "manual transmission." However, based on the nature of your transmission and the language and overall purposes of Standard No. 102, we conclude that your transmission would be considered an automatic transmission. We have considered the following factors in reaching that conclusion.

First, we believe that a driver would perceive your transmission as "automatic," since he or she would not manually shift gears as part of the driving task.

Second, each of Standard No. 102's requirements for automatic transmissions is relevant to your transmission, to the extent that it is applicable.

Third, we are not aware of any arguments why your transmission should not be considered "automatic." Your transmission does differ from most automatic transmissions in having only one forward speed. However, the language of Standard No. 102 indicates that a transmission with only one forward speed may be classified as Aautomatic.@ In specifying requirements for automatic transmissions, S3.1.2 states that, "in vehicles having more than one forward transmission gear ratio, one forward drive position shall provide a greater degree of engine braking than the highest speed transmission ratio . . ." The agency included the language at the beginning of that quotation in light of one-speed automatic transmissions. (This is explained in a Report on the Development of the Initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, published by NHTSA (then called the National Traffic Safety Agency) on March 17, 1967.)

I note that, on February 2, 1995, in an interpretation letter to Solectria Corporation, the agency stated, "NHTSA has previously concluded that electric vehicles with single speed transmissions are excluded from Standard No. 102 (58 FR at 4646)." Unfortunately, that statement does not appear to be an accurate description of the referenced authority. On further review, we believe there is reason to conclude that Standard No. 102 does

apply to electric vehicles with single speed transmissions. As indicated above, however, the transmission braking effect requirement only applies to vehicles having more than one forward transmission gear ratio.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:102 d:5/3/96

ID: aiam0487

Dear Mr. Snead: This is in reply to your letter of November 1, 1971, concerning th status of your petition to amend Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, 'Glazing Materials', to allow the use of Uvex plastic sheet in motor vehicles. You request our comments regarding three matters which you list, and which are incorporated into our responses below.; You ask us to 'explain that Uvex Sheet Plastic is and has been unde active consideration for vehicle glazing approval for some time and an early decision is anticipated.' A notice of proposed rulemaking to amend Standard No. 205 (Docket No. 71-1) was published January 9, 1971 (36 F.R. 326). This notice would allow the use in motor vehicles of plastic materials, not presently allowed, that meet certain specified requirements. This notice is based in part upon a petition submitted by Eastman Chemical. The requirements do not refer to Uvex or any other material by name. The Administration takes no position on whether Uvex material would meet the proposed requirements. A final decision based on this notice is anticipated in the near future.; The notice of proposed rulemaking of January 9, 1971, does, as yo indicate, propose other amendments to Standard No. 205. Some of these proposals have engendered substantial interest from industry and have consequently affected the amount of Agency work involved in the rulemaking action.; Finally, you ask if State highway standards preventing the use of Uve will continue to be effective if Uvex is allowed to be used under the Federal standards. Under section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)), a State motor vehicle safety standard applicable to a particular aspect of motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance must be identical to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard applicable to that same aspect of performance. Consequently, a State vehicle standard prohibiting all use of Uvex would be pre-empted to the extent that amendment of Standard No. 205 permits its use.; I hope this clarifies the situation for you. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel

ID: nht72-4.7

DATE: 04/12/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Douglas W. Toms; NHTSA

TO: General Motors Technical Center

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 28, 1972, in which you asked to be referred to the information on which we based our statement in the notice of February 24, 1972, that systems meeting the injury criteria of Standard 208 are available using current seat belt technology.

Research data on the capabilities of seat belts are found in several places in the public docket, notably in the progress reports from our Safety Systems Laboratory and from Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory (69-7 General Reference Nos. 74, 75, 83, 96, 102, 117, 120, and 135). There are records of vehicle tests, including some performed by General Motors, in which current lap and shoulder belt systems have met the injury criteria (see, e.g., N<13>-69-7-20; N<13>-69-7-37). Also, the record contains information on energy absorbing webbing and anchorages, both of which are improvements within the current state of the art (see, for example, the 6th progress report from Cornell, runs no. 625-630, General Reference No. 135; the data from Toyota in N<13>-69-7-23; and the Takata Koyjo data in N<16>-69-7-1).

Although the behavior of the head seems to be a greater problem for belt systems than the behavior of the chest, due in part to the effects of rebound, the changes in the head injury criteria proposed in Notice 17 should ease the problem considerably.