ID: aiam3855

Dear Mr. Mayor: This responds to your letter about Safety Standard No. 101, *Control and Displays*, and Safety Standard No. 102, *Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect*. Your letter asked two questions concerning whether a proposed design for a passenger car automatic transmission shift lever would meet the requirements of those standards. Your questions are answered below. This letter also discusses additional issues raised by your proposed design that were not directly raised by your letter. Finally, since the drawing accompanying your letter may be a future design plan, I have enclosed a copy of 49 CFR 512, which explains how you may apply for confidential treatment of design information.; By way of background information, I would note that the Nationa Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not grant approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to assure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.; According to your letter and accompanying drawing, the design you ar considering may be generally described as follows. The shift level would be mounted on the floor console and would not be identified. A display for the transmission sequence would be provided on the instrument panel. All eligible positions would be permanently in view of the driver, and the selected position would be identified through more intense illumination.; Your first question is whether it is permissible under these standard for a manufacturer not to provide identification for the shift level. The answer to that question is yes. Neither Standard No. 101 nor Standard No. 102 includes any requirement concerning identification of an automatic transmission shift level. Moreover, no other Federal motor vehicle safety standard includes such a requirement.; The identification and other requirements of Standard No. 101 onl apply to the controls and displays listed in the standard. Since automatic transmission shift levers are not among the controls listed in the standard, the standard's requirements are not applicable. Standard No. 102 requires that '(i)dentification of shift lever positions of automatic transmissions...shall be permanently displayed in view of the driver.' Section S3.2. NHTSA has interpreted this section to require the display of a gear lever sequence and a gear position indicator. The section does not, however, require the shift lever control itself to be identified.; Your second question is whether Standard No. 101 or Standard No. 10 requires the shift level to be within a certain reaching distance to be operable by the driver while driving the vehicle. The answer to that question is no.; As your letter pointed out, Standard No. 101 does require certai controls to be operable by the driver when the driver is restrained by the crash protection equipment installed in accordance with the requirements of Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*. As explained in the answer to your first question, however, the requirements of Standard No. 101 are not applicable to automatic transmission shift levers. I would note that the term 'manual transmission shift lever,' listed in section S5.1 of the standard, does not incorporate automatic transmission shift levers. Similarly, Standard No. 102 does not include any requirements concerning the location of the shift lever.; I would like to point out two additional issues raised by your propose design. The first concerns the requirements in Standard No. 102 that '(i)dentification of shift lever positions of automatic transmissions...shall be permanently displayed in view of the driver.' Section S3.2. NHTSA interprets 'positions' to mean the position of the gear in relation to each other *and* the position that the driver has selected. Thus, as noted above, the agency has interpreted this section to require the display of a gear level sequence *and* a gear position indicator.; Moreover, the agency has interpreted this section's use of the word 'permanently displayed' to require a display which can be seen regardless of the operating mode of the engine. Thus, a display that would not be seen when the ignition is in the 'off' position does not comply with these requirements. (A letter which discusses this interpretation is enclosed. The letter is addressed to Ford.); Taking these interpretations together, Standard No. 102 requires th display of a gear level sequence and a gear position indicator, both of which must be capable of being seen regardless of whether the ignition is on or off. It is not clear whether your proposed design meets these requirements. Your letter states that all eligible positions are permanently in view of the driver and the selected position is identified through more intense illumination. First, with regard to the gear level sequence, it is not clear whether your letter's use of the word 'permanently' covers periods of time when the ignition is not on. Second, with regard to the gear position indicator, it is not clear whether the selected position is identified by more intense illumination during periods of time when the ignition is not on.; The second issue I would like to note concerns the light intensit requirements of Standard No. 101. Automatic gear position displays are covered by that standard and must meet its requirements for, among other things, light intensity. An automatic gear display is a gauge. See section S4. Section S5.3.3 requires that light intensities for gauges and their identification be continuously variable from (a) a position at which either there is no light emitted or the light is barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions to (b) a position providing illumination sufficient for the driver to identify the control or display readily under conditions of reduced visibility. However, if the gauge is an informational readout display, section S5.3.3 only requires that it have at least two values a higher one for day, and a lower one for nighttime conditions.; Finally, I would note that incoming letters and attachments ar routinely made public along with letters of interpretation. Since the drawing accompanying your letter may be a future design plan, I have enclosed a copy of 49 CFR 512, *Confidential Business Information*, which sets forth the agency's procedures concerning confidentiality. Please contact me if you wish to apply for confidential treatment for that drawing.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: alliance(9-2-03).ajd

Mr. Robert S. Strassburger
Vice President
Vehicle Safety and Harmonization
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Inc.
1401 H Street, NW, Suite 900
Washington, D.C. 20005

Dear Mr. Strassburger:

This is in reply to your letter of September 2, 2003, regarding my July 21, 2003 letter to Mr. Cavallo of Halcore Group, Inc., which discussed the early warning reporting (EWR) responsibilities of small volume manufacturers.

I had advised Mr. Cavallo that "[f]or the purposes of determining whether the production of vehicles meets or exceeds the 500 vehicles per year threshold in Section 579.21 et seq., the production of the divisions, parent, subsidiaries and affiliates must be aggregated." This interpretation is consistent with other letters interpreting the EWR regulation.See Letter from Jacqueline Glassman to John D. Evans of April 11, 2003, at p. 3; Letter from Jacqueline Glassman to Rod Nash of August 20, 2003, at p. 2; and Letter from Jacqueline Glassman to Rod Nash of October 10, 2003.

You assert that the interpretation that I provided to Mr. Cavallo was inconsistent with statements made by a person other than the Chief Counsel at a public meeting. The September 24, 2002 public meeting you reference concerned technical issues, such as security and acknowledgement of submissions, regarding electronic EWR submissions to the agency. The Federal Register Notice announcing this meeting was clear that this was to be only a technical meeting. See 67 FR 55448. Moreover, at the time of the meeting, we expressly stated that the information presented was not binding upon the agency, and that nothing stated at the meeting should be construed as a final NHTSA interpretation. Transcript p. 8. [1] In addition, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance) and its members are familiar with NHTSAs interpretive processes. As such, the Alliance is fully aware that the Chief Counsel is the only NHTSA official with authority to issue interpretations of agency regulations. See 49 CFR 501.8(d)(4).

Second, you state that the interpretation in the Cavallo letter is inconsistent with how the agency intends to use the information collected from EWR, as stated in the final rule. You also said that the value in the information provided by low volume manufacturers is very limited when conducting trend analysis because a single incident can look like a high "incident rate" relative to the performance of other vehicles manufactured in larger quantities. In addition, you concluded that "the agencys guidance from September 2002 public meeting regarding the limited reporting requirements for low volume subsidiaries makes sense in the overall context of the EWR rule and the uses to which NHTSA plans to put the EWR information."

We disagree with your conclusion. The statement was not "the agencys guidance." We determined that the 500 unit production threshold is the appropriate demarcation point in part based on small business concerns. We also determined that aggregate reporting is appropriate in order to capture all vehicles manufactured by an entity with affiliates or subsidiaries. Moreover, while a single incident may skew the "incident rate" relative to other vehicles, it is not the only factor that controls NHTSAs initiation of a defect investigation or the determining factor in deciding to issue an initial determination. Also, EWR information will not be the sole basis for opening a defect investigation. As we stated in the preamble to the final rule, "if we identify matters that might possibly suggest the existence of a defect, we plan to seek additional clarifying information from the manufacturer in question, and from other sources, to help us to decide whether to open a formal defect investigation." 45822 FR at 45865. We see no reason to vary from our current position.

Lastly, you stated that, in the context of FMVSS No. 208 phase-in requirements, the agency in an interpretation letter previously determined that low volume subsidiaries of larger parent companies retain their low volume status. As you recognize in your letter, a letter interpreting FMVSS No. 208 does not control the interpretation of the EWR regulation. We also noted in that letter that the interpretation provided therein only reflected consideration of factors underlying FMVSS No. 208, and did not provide guidance for interpreting any other regulatory provisions. See Letter from John Womack to Grant Nakayama of August 22, 2001. We do not believe that the concerns underlying that interpretation letter are the same as those underlying the EWR regulation. First, the exclusion of low volume subsidiaries from the phase-in requirements of FMVSS No. 208 reflected the technical challenges faced by smaller manufacturers given the complexity of the advanced air bag requirements. Second, that exclusion simply deferred compliance with the advanced air bag rule by low volume subsidiaries to the end of the phase-in period. In contrast, your suggestion would, in effect, totally exclude low volume subsidiaries from the comprehensive reporting requirements of the EWR regulation.

If you have any questions, you may call Andrew DiMarsico of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:579
d.11/4/03





---

[1] Docket NHTSA 2001-8677-530. Available at http://dms.dot.gov.

ID: aiam4477

"Dear Mr. Mikoll: This responds to your recent request for confirmatio of your understanding that school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less would comply with the existing requirements of the safety standards if those buses were equipped with a new occupant protection device your company is considering producing. As explained below, this device could not be installed in small school buses as a substitute for safety belts at those seating positions. Assuming those seating positions are equipped with safety belts, the seating positions could also be equipped with this device if the addition of the device does not prevent the safety belts from complying with the requirements of the safety standards. The new device you are considering producing is a 'safety bar.' This bar consists, in part, of two curved metal poles in planes that are parallel to the longitudinal centerline of the bus. These curved poles are joined by three cross members that are parallel to the seat and are covered with padding. The padded surface is angled at the top slightly back from the vertical. The curved metal poles are attached to the outside of the seat in front of the seat whose occupants will be protected by the 'safety bar,' so that the padded surface extends over the entire width of the seat whose occupants it is designed to protect. When the seat whose occupants are to be protected by this 'safety bar' is unoccupied, the padded surface rests approximately on the latitudinal centerline of the seat. When an occupant wishes to be seated, he or she must lift the 'safety bar' and then sit down. The 'safety bar' will then rest on the occupant's thighs. Additionally, a special strap that resembles a very long seat belt assembly must be fastened around the safety bar to hold it in position in the event of a crash. The crash protection requirements for school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less are set forth in S5(b) of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.222). That section provides that these school buses must be capable of meeting the requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.208) as it applies to multipurpose passenger vehicles, at all seating positions other than the driver's seat. The requirements of Standard No. 208 that apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less are set forth in section S4.2 of Standard No. 208. That section specifies that multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less shall meet the requirements specified for passenger cars in either S4.1.2.1, S4.1.2.2, or S4.1.2.3 of Standard No. 208. Each of these three subsections of S4.1.2 requires each rear designated seating position to be equipped with a safety belt. S4.1.2 gives manufacturers the option of substituting a protection system 'that requires no action by vehicle occupants' for a safety belt at any or all rear designated seating positions. Your proposed 'safety bar' requires two specific actions by vehicle occupants, i.e., lifting the bar so that the seat can be occupied and buckling the strap to hold the bar in place. Therefore, the 'safety bar' could not be considered a protection system that 'requires no action by vehicle occupants,' for the purposes of S4.1.2 of Standard No. 208. Accordingly, each rear designated seating position in small school buses equipped with this 'safety bar' must also be equipped with safety belts. Assuming that these seating positions were equipped with safety belts, the installation of 'safety bars' in small school buses would be a voluntary action on the part of the school bus manufacturer. NHTSA has said in several prior interpretation letters that the systems or components installed in addition to required safety systems are not required to meet Federal safety standards, provided that the additional components or systems do not destroy the ability of required systems (the safety belts in this case) to comply with the Federal safety standards. If this is the case, the 'safety bars' could be provided as a supplement to safety belts on small school buses. To install these 'safety bars' in any new school bus, the manufacturer would have to certify that a bus with the 'safety bars' installed complied with the impact zone requirements set forth in S5.3 of Standard No. 222. Thus, if any part of the 'safety bar' was within the head protection zone or leg protection zone, the 'safety bar' would have to be certified as complying with the applicable requirements of S5.3. Additionally, the manufacturer would have to certify that the school buses with these 'safety bars' installed complied with Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release (49 CFR /571.217). Standard No. 217 requires school buses to be equipped with emergency exits of a minimum size. This means the 'safety bars' could not obstruct emergency exits located adjacent to seats. If you decide to manufacture these 'safety bars,' your company will be a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.). As such, you will have several responsibilities, including the responsibility specified in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) to conduct a notification and remedy campaign if your company or the agency determines either that the safety bar contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety or that it does not comply with an applicable safety standard. A copy of an information sheet is enclosed, which describes briefly this and other statutory and regulatory responsibilities of manufacturers and explains how to obtain copies of our regulations. Please let me know if you have any further questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: nht88-1.81

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/28/88

FROM: DON O. HORNING -- P. E. INDUSTRIAL TESTING LABORATORIES

TO: C-MORE-LITE, JERRY'S SERVICE

TITLE: TEST REPORT NO: 92606

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/19/88 TO DOUGLAS H BOSCO, FROM ERIKA Z JONES, REDBOOK A32 (2) STANDARD 108 LETTER DATED 06/16/88, TO ERIKA Z. JONES, FROM DOUGLAS H. BOSCO; LETTER DATED 08/03/87 TO DOUGLAS H. BOSCO FROM ERIKA Z JONES; LETTER DATED 0 6/09/88 TO JERRY K YOST FROM L. FROLLIN; 1988 LETTER TO ERIKA Z. JONES FROM JERRY SERVICE

TEXT: Enclosed is the photometric data taken on the Halogen H4651 Single Filament Sealed Beam Headlamp and the Halogen H4656 Dual Filament Headlamp.

The two headlamps were mounted on a standard text fixture placed on the goniometer and aimed per specification SAE J579, Dec 84. Candlepower readings were taken at the appropriate settings with both filaments energized on the H4656 headlamp and with the single filament energized on the H4651 headlamp.

These readings were combined to simulate the operation of the C-More-Lite Headlight relay which activates both filaments on the 2-filament headlamp as well as the single filament to effectively provide both low beam and high beam illumination when the hi gh beam is switched on.

The accompanying table of photometric results at 100 ft were made with the aim established per SAE J579, Dec 84, Section 3.4 and the voltage at 12.8 volts. As indicated at the bottom of the table, the maximums could not be combined, as they did not coin cide as to location. Adjusting either lamp to the location of the other maximum did not produce a combined maximum in excess of the permissible maximum of 75,000 cd.

No tests were run utilizing the C-More-Lite relay in the circuit. tests run only simulate the effect of its operation.

As a part of this report a copy of SAE J579, Dec 84, is included for substantiation of test points and maximum and minimum cd. There is also included a diagram of the measurement points combining both upper and lower beams.

It should be noted that this laboratory takes no position relative to the C-More Relay as regards its utilization.

Description of Headlamps used: ITL TEST NUMBER 92606

1. Lamp Halogen H4651 - 4x6 1/2 inch sealed beam headlamp Westinghouse Headlamps by Philips (Assembled in Mexico) High Beam for 4 head light system Replaces 4651, HP4651 2 lugs - 12 volts Marked - 1A1 Sealed Beam, Halogen, U.S.A. DOT.

2. Lamp Halogen H4656 - 4x6 1/2 inch sealed beam headlamp Westinghouse Headlamps by Philips (Assembled in Mexico) Low Beam for 4 headlamp system Replaces 4656, HP4656 3 lugs - 12 volts Marked - 2A1 Sealed Beam, Halogen, U.S.A. DOT.

[TABLE OF PHOTOMETRIC TESTS H4656 AND H4651 SEAL BEAM HEADLAMPS, ITL TEST NO 92606, OMITTED]

[SAE J579 STANDARD OMITTED]

LOWER BEAM & UPPER BEAM (CHART OMITTED)

ID: aiam0994

Dear Mr. Kato: This is in reply to your letter of January 4, 1973, concerning you continuing uncertainties about the intent of sections S4.3.1.1 and S4.3.1.3 of Standard 210.; In your figure 1, assuming the seat is not adjustable, the contac points would be (b) in the first drawing and (c) in the second. However, a rigid attachment of the length shown in the second drawing would appear to violate the intent of S4.3.1.1 that the angle formed by the webbing in passing from the hardware to the seating reference point should be a forward angle.; In your figure 2, if the bracket can be rotated so that an extension o its centerline would pass through the seating reference point, we would consider point (p) to be the nearest contact point for purposes of S4.3.1.1 and S4.3.1.3.; With respect to the proposed used (sic) of a flexible wire, as shown i figure 3, the ability of the wire to move with reasonable freedom removes it from the category of rigid hardware. We would consider the points shown as (c) and (f) to be the appropriate contact points for purposes of S4.3.1.1 and S4.3.1.3.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: nht81-2.34

DATE: 06/17/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Chrysler Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter requesting an interpretation concerning the seat belt warning system requirements of Safety Standard No. 208. You ask whether the standard permits the audible warning system to activate even when the seat belt is buckled. If the agency's response is negative, you ask that your letter be treated as a petition for rulemaking.

The answer to your question is no. The audible warning system cannot activate if the seat belt is buckled. This same question was asked in a request for interpretation and petition for rulemaking submitted by American Motors Corporation in 1979. Enclosed is a copy of the agency's December 31, 1979, response to American Motors, which explains the rationale for this interpretation.

The agency's position has not changed since the response to American Motors, although as part of our regulatory review, we do plan to look closely at the warning system requirements of Standard No. 208 in their entirety. That review could lead to major changes in the warning system requirements, and we will give serious consideration to your request during our analysis. At the current time, however, we deny your petition for rulemaking since the requested change is inconsistent with the rationale for the existing warning system requirements.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

CHRYSLER CORPORATION

Raymond Peck -- Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Peck:

Chrysler Corporation requests interpretation of the requirements contained in MVSS 208, Occupant Crash Protection, regarding the operation of the audible signal of the seat belt reminder system. Paragraph S7.3 requires:

A seat belt assembly provided at the driver's seating position shall be equipped with a warning system that activates for a period of not less than four seconds and not more than eight seconds (beginning when the vehicle ignition switch is moved to the "on" or the "start" position), a continuous or flashing warning light, visible to the driver, displaying the words, "Fasten Seat Belt" or "Fasten Belt" or the identifying symbol for the seat belt telltale in Table 2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101-80 when condition (a) exists, and a continuous or intermittent audible signal when condition (a) exists simultaneously with condition (b).

(a) - The vehicle's position switch is moved to the "on" position or to the "start" position.

(b) - The driver's lap belt is not in use, as determined, at the option of the manufacturers, either by the belt latch mechanism not being fastened or by belt not being extended at least four inches from its stowed position.

Specifically, we request an interpretation of the language of S7.3 as to whether continued operation of the audible signal is permissible during the remaining portion of the four to eight second time period after the driver has started the engine and buckled his seat belt.

A affirmative interpretation would not depreciate the reminder systems effectiveness, would be cost beneficial, and in our opinion, is permitted under the language of the standard. The only adverse effect of such an interpretation would be a slight annoyance to those drivers who "buckle up" before the four to eight second time period has elapsed.

The seat belt reminder system that Chrysler Corporation uses includes a switch in the driver's lap belt buckle to deactivate the audible signal whenever the driver's lap belt is in use. The inclusion of this switch made good sense when the provisions of the standard required that the audible signal activate for at least one minute if the driver's lap belt was not in use. Subsequently, the Congress and the NHTSA amended the standard to require the current four to eight second limitation. With this limitation, there is no longer a need to deactivate the audible signal since in any event it can only function for a maximum of eight seconds. Consequently, we do not believe that operation of the audible signal for this time period would be a major annoyance to those seat belt users who "buckle up" before starting the engine. Moreover, allowing the audible signal to function regardless of whether the driver's lap belt is in use would improve the systems effectiveness by alerting other vehicle occupants of the need to "buckle up". The removal of the driver's seat belt buckle switch would result in a product cost savings of from $ 0.94 to $ 1.86 on our passenger cars and obviously increase the cost effectiveness of the seat belt reminder system.

We understand the NHTSA has previously interpreted the provisions of paragraph S7.3 to require that the audible signal be deactivated whenever the driver's lap belt is in use. That interpretation appears to be primarily based on the agency's intent as discussed in the previous rulemaking notices. While these are important, the language of the standard should be the final criteria to guide any interpretation of the standard. Moreover, we believe the intent of the agency cited in the response to the previous request for interpretation of paragraph S7.3 was really related to the earlier rulemaking actions at a time when the audible signal was required to function continuously or for at least one minute. Under the current four to eight second limitation, we doubt the agency's stated intent applies to such a de minimus matter.

If the agency cannot issue an affirmative interpretation of paragraph S7.3, we ask that this request be considered a petition for rulemaking to amend S7.3 of MVSS 208 and tha the necessary changes in the standard be adopted as soon as possible. As pointed out above, the requirement for a buckle switch to deactivate the audible signal when the driver "buckles up" has no safety merit and continuing a requirement for it perpetuates cost without benefit. In view of these facts and the potential cost savings if the buckle switch can be removed, the regulations should not require it.

Sincerely,

R. O. Sornson -- Director, Regulatory Research and Analysis

ID: 16425-2.ogm

Mr. Todd W. Loescher
Sales/Marketing Manager
Cliff Keyes Mfg. & Supply Co.
2015 West First
Newton, KS 67114

Dear Mr. Loescher:

This responds to your letter regarding aisle facing or side facing seats in commercial buses and multipurpose vehicles. Specifically, you ask whether there is a code of federal regulations for such seats, whether a seating manufacturer can provide attachment points on a seat or seat pedestal for seat belts intended for use on such vehicles and whether a seating manufacturer can attach seat belts on a seat or a seat pedestal for intended for use on such vehicles. In the latter two instances, you ask what code of federal regulations, if any, applies.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under Title 49, Chapter 301 of the U.S. Code to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Chapter 301 prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) are published as separate subsections within section 571 of volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish five safety standards that may be relevant to your questions. The first is Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, which sets forth strength requirements for all "occupant seats". The second is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, which sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in vehicles. The third is Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, which sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. The fourth is Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, which establishes strength and location requirements for seat belt anchorages. The final relevant safety standard is Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. This standard specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used in the occupant compartment of motor vehicles.

Your first question relates to regulations applicable to side facing seats in buses and multipurpose vehicles. Standard No. 207, Seating systems, establishes performance requirements for "occupant seats" in passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses. In particular, S4.1 requires vehicles to have an occupant seat for the driver, S4.2 specifies general performance requirements relating to strength, S4.3 specifies requirements for restraining devices for hinged or folding seats or seat backs, and S4.4 specifies labeling requirements for seats not designated for occupancy while the vehicle is in motion. I note, however, that the seats you ask about are excluded from some, but not all, of the standard's requirements. The requirements of S4.2 do not apply to side-facing seats and the requirements of S4.2 and S4.3 do not apply to passenger seats in buses.

Your second and third questions concern whether a seat manufacturer can provide attachment points for seat belts, and seat belts, on seats and seat pedestals intended for use on side facing seats in buses and multipurpose vehicles and, if so, which regulations apply.

A seat manufacturer may provide seat belt attachment points on seats or seat pedestals and attach seat belts to those attachment points. I note that it would be the vehicle manufacturer, rather than the seat manufacturer, that would be required to certify the vehicle (with the seat installed) to the applicable safety standards.

Standard No. 208 establishes requirements for safety belts in cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses. The type of belt required depends on the class of vehicle and location of the seating position within the vehicle. Buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 10,000 pounds are not required to have safety belts at any location other than the driver's seat.

Standard No. 210 requires the installation of anchorages at any location where a safety belt is required by Standard No. 208.

Standard No. 210 excludes side-facing seats from its strength requirements specified in S4.2, but all other requirements of the standard apply to side-facing seats. We strongly recommend that belt anchorages for side-facing seats be of at least equivalent strength to anchorages for forward and rearward facing seats, since the strength specifications are only minimum performance requirements.

In addition to meeting the requirements of Standard No. 209, any fabric or trim provided with the seat belts themselves would have to meet the requirements of Standard No. 302, Flammability of interior materials.

I hope that this is responsive to your inquiry. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Otto Matheke at (202) 366-5263.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:208
d.3/13/98

ID: aiam1585

Dear Mr. Vidoli: This responds to your August 8, 1974, request for our opinion of th legality of the manufacture and sale of a device which frustrates the ignition function of seat belt assemblies in 1974 model passenger cars. The device, to be manufactured by the Chadamy Corporation under the name 'Buzz-Off', consists of two devices that are inserted in the ends of a seat belt assembly to simulate a buckling action.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has promulgated n safety standard regulating the manufacture of your product. A standard does exist, however, which specifies requirements for occupant restraint systems. If one of your devices were installed in a vehicle prior to its first purchase for purposes other than resale, causing the interlock system not to be in compliance with the occupant crash protection standard, the person installing the device or offering the vehicle for sale would be in violation of Section 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits the manufacture for sale, sale, or offer for sale of any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that does not comply with applicable safety standards in effect on the date of their manufacture.; I would like to point out, that we estimate 10,000-15,000 individual died needlessly during 1973 because they were not wearing their seatbelts. Obviously, any device which disconnects a seat belt interlock could gravely increase the risk faced by the occupants of the motor vehicle. We cannot agree with your conclusion that people would not utilize your device to frustrate the interlock in highway driving.; I would also like to point out the recent Congressional action in whic the House of Representatives passed a law which would prevent a requirement for ignition interlock systems in future passenger cars. The final form of this law, pending Senate action, is not clear.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5227

"Dear Mr. Koop: This responds to your letter of June 3, 1993 requesting information on a modification for police vehicles. You seek permission to remove the passenger seat and passenger air bag from police vehicles, and to permanently mount equipment where the passenger seat had been. As explained below, this type of modification would be permitted under Federal law. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. Among the standards that NHTSA has issued are two which could be affected by the modification you propose: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, (49 CFR 571.207), which requires each vehicle to have an occupant seat for the driver and sets strength and other performance requirements for all occupant seats in a vehicle, and Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), which specifies occupant protection requirements based on vehicle type and seating position within the vehicle. If your contemplated modification is made before a vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration (See 49 CFR Part 567.7). Once the front passenger seat is removed, Standard No. 208 would not require an air bag for that location since an occupant restraint is only required if a seating position is there. After a vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale, i.e., the first retail sale of the vehicle, the presence and condition of devices or elements of design installed in the vehicle under applicable safety standards is affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides: 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. NHTSA does not consider there to be a violation of the 'render inoperative' prohibition with respect to occupant restraints if, after one of the named types of commercial entities modifies a used vehicle, the vehicle is equipped with occupant restraints at every seating position and those occupant restraints are the type that Standard No. 208 permitted when the vehicle was new. Again, if a seating position were removed from a used vehicle, the removal of the air bag as well would not violate the render inoperative provision because the presence of the air bag was originally premised on the presence of the seating position. However, the render inoperative prohibition would be violated if removal of the passenger side air bag caused the driver side air bag to malfunction or deploy. I would like to caution you to contact the vehicle manufacturer concerning the proper procedure for any air bag removal. Removing an air bag could cause it to deploy and injure the mechanic. In addition, removal of the passenger side air bag could cause the driver side air bag to malfunction or deploy. You should also note that the 'render inoperative' prohibition applies only to the named entities. Therefore, vehicle owners are permitted to make any modifications to their vehicles, even if the vehicle would no longer comply with applicable safety standards. However, we encourage vehicle owners not to tamper with the occupant protection systems installed in their vehicles. You should be aware that S4.5.2 of Standard No. 208 requires a readiness indicator for an air bag system which is clearly visible from the driver's seating position. NHTSA believes that most manufacturers install one indicator for both air bags. After the passenger side air bag is removed, this indicator would show that the air bag system is not operative. NHTSA is concerned that the driver would then be unable to tell if the driver side air bag were functional. Therefore, I urge you to contact the manufacturer to determine how the indicator could be altered to monitor the readiness of the driver side air bag only. As a final caution, I note that the purpose of the 'render inoperative' provision is to ensure, to the degree possible, current and subsequent owners and users of the vehicle are not deprived of the maximum protection afforded by the vehicle as newly manufactured. Your letter states that you will 'place permanently mounted policing equipment in the seat's place.' It is our understanding that it is common for police cars to be sold after a few years of service. Presumably any police equipment would be removed before such a sale. I urge you to either reinstall the passenger seat and occupant restraint or to make these modifications in a way that will discourage reinstallation of the passenger seat, so that future users of the vehicle are unlikely to use a seating position that does not have any occupant restraint. 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: aiam5226

"Dear Mr. Koop: This responds to your letter of June 3, 1993 requesting information on a modification for police vehicles. You seek permission to remove the passenger seat and passenger air bag from police vehicles, and to permanently mount equipment where the passenger seat had been. As explained below, this type of modification would be permitted under Federal law. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. Among the standards that NHTSA has issued are two which could be affected by the modification you propose: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, (49 CFR 571.207), which requires each vehicle to have an occupant seat for the driver and sets strength and other performance requirements for all occupant seats in a vehicle, and Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), which specifies occupant protection requirements based on vehicle type and seating position within the vehicle. If your contemplated modification is made before a vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration (See 49 CFR Part 567.7). Once the front passenger seat is removed, Standard No. 208 would not require an air bag for that location since an occupant restraint is only required if a seating position is there. After a vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale, i.e., the first retail sale of the vehicle, the presence and condition of devices or elements of design installed in the vehicle under applicable safety standards is affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides: 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. NHTSA does not consider there to be a violation of the 'render inoperative' prohibition with respect to occupant restraints if, after one of the named types of commercial entities modifies a used vehicle, the vehicle is equipped with occupant restraints at every seating position and those occupant restraints are the type that Standard No. 208 permitted when the vehicle was new. Again, if a seating position were removed from a used vehicle, the removal of the air bag as well would not violate the render inoperative provision because the presence of the air bag was originally premised on the presence of the seating position. However, the render inoperative prohibition would be violated if removal of the passenger side air bag caused the driver side air bag to malfunction or deploy. I would like to caution you to contact the vehicle manufacturer concerning the proper procedure for any air bag removal. Removing an air bag could cause it to deploy and injure the mechanic. In addition, removal of the passenger side air bag could cause the driver side air bag to malfunction or deploy. You should also note that the 'render inoperative' prohibition applies only to the named entities. Therefore, vehicle owners are permitted to make any modifications to their vehicles, even if the vehicle would no longer comply with applicable safety standards. However, we encourage vehicle owners not to tamper with the occupant protection systems installed in their vehicles. You should be aware that S4.5.2 of Standard No. 208 requires a readiness indicator for an air bag system which is clearly visible from the driver's seating position. NHTSA believes that most manufacturers install one indicator for both air bags. After the passenger side air bag is removed, this indicator would show that the air bag system is not operative. NHTSA is concerned that the driver would then be unable to tell if the driver side air bag were functional. Therefore, I urge you to contact the manufacturer to determine how the indicator could be altered to monitor the readiness of the driver side air bag only. As a final caution, I note that the purpose of the 'render inoperative' provision is to ensure, to the degree possible, current and subsequent owners and users of the vehicle are not deprived of the maximum protection afforded by the vehicle as newly manufactured. Your letter states that you will 'place permanently mounted policing equipment in the seat's place.' It is our understanding that it is common for police cars to be sold after a few years of service. Presumably any police equipment would be removed before such a sale. I urge you to either reinstall the passenger seat and occupant restraint or to make these modifications in a way that will discourage reinstallation of the passenger seat, so that future users of the vehicle are unlikely to use a seating position that does not have any occupant restraint. 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";