ID: 86-5.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/04/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S.P. Wood for Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. B.K. O'Neil

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of January 22, 1986, asking how our regulations affect a product you manufacture. Your letter and the literature you enclosed describe your product as a modified acrylic tinted shield which fits over the front end of a passenger car. According to the pictures you enclosed with your letter, your shield fits over the headlights of some vehicles, in others it apparently only covers the front turn signals. I regret the delay in our response. As discussed below, your product could be affected by two Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates other alleged safety-related defects.

The agency has issued Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which sets performance and marking requirements for glazing materials used in a vehicle. Auxillary wind deflectors are among the items of glazing materials covered by the standard. The agency has applied the standard to the type of wind deflector that is used at a location necessary for driving visibility. The purpose of the requirement is to ensure that wind deflectors do not obstruct or distort the vision of a driver. Thus, for example, the agency has said in a letter of October 2, 1985, to Mr. Rosario Costanzo that the standard would apply to a wind deflector designed to be mounted in the side window of a vehicle. The literature you enclosed shows that your product, which is a type of plastic shield, is not mounted in a location necessary for driving visibility and thus would not be covered by Standard No. 205.

Installation of your product in a new vehicle prior to its first sale would be affected by Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, which sets, among other things, minimum candle power requirements for headlamps and turn signals. In addition, paragraph S4.1.3 of the standard prohibits the installation of motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. Furthermore Society of Automotive Engineers Standard J580, Sealed Beam Headlamp Assembly, which is incorporated by reference in paragraph S4.1.1.36 and Tables I and II of Standard No. 108, prohibits styling features in front of headlamps when the lamps have been activated. Thus, S4.1.3, S4.1.1.36, and Tables I and II prohibit the use of fixed transparent headlamp covers as original equipment on motor vehicles. Part 567, Certification, of our regulations provides that a person that alters a new vehicle prior to its first sale must certify that the vehicle, as altered, still conforms with all applicable safety standards. Thus, an alterer could not install a version of your product which covers the headlamps of a vehicle. If a version of your product covers the turn signal or any other required lighting device, the alterer must certify that the vehicle lights will still comply with Standard No. 108 with your product in place. Persons violating the certification requirement are subject to a civil fine of up to $ 1,000 per violation.

Installation of your product in a used vehicle would be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly tampering with devices or elements of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Thus, a commercial business could not install a version of your product which covers the headlamps of a vehicle. If the version of your product covers the turn signal or any other required lighting device, the business must assure that the vehicle lamps will still comply with Standard No. 108 with your product in place. Commercial businesses that violate section 108(a)(2)(A) are subject to a civil penalty of $ 1,000 per violation.

The prohibition of section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who may install or remove any items of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, the agency encourages vehicle owners not to remove or otherwise tamper with vehicle safety equipment. Also, any modifications made by a vehicle owner would have to comply with applicable state law.

In addition, you as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. I have enclosed an information sheet which outlines those requirements.

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

Sincerely,

ENC.

January 22, 1986

Department of Transportation

Attn: Erika Jones Chief Counsel

Dear Ms. Jones:

I have been in contact with Mr. Ed Glassie of your department, and he suggested we contact you for clarification on our product.

AUTOBRA I manufactures a modified acrylic (Plexiglas DR(R)) auto bra, as per the enclosed literature.

I would like to find out if we are approved by D.O.T., or in fact, our product would need approval under your guidelines.

Please peruse our literature and samples, and advise me of your comments.

AUTOBRA I, INC.

B.K. O'Neill Vice President/Marketing

ENC.

P.S. Although there are presently four or five other manufacturers of auto bras in America right now, we are unfamiliar with their position as to D.O.T. compliance. The only difference between us is the type of plastic used.

(Graphics omitted)

Autobra shield has been designed to provide the following innovative features not available with most front end protection: STYLING Autobra shield's aerodynamic styling actually enhances your automobile's appearance.

MOUNTING Mounting Autobra shield is fast and secure without modification to your automobile.

ACCESS Autobra shield provides easy access to your hood or bonnet without total removal of the shield.

PROTECTION Autobra shield's solid acrylic construction provides maximum protection to your automobile from stones, bugs and other flying debris.

SAFETY Abrasion, mildew and damage to body finish of the covered area are eliminated because Autobra shield mounts away from the surface of the automobile.

MAINTENANCE Autobra shield wipes clean with soap and water providing easy maintenance.

Autobra shield's acrylic construction is resistant to the WEATHER elements; RESISTANCE consequently removal of the shield in inclement weather is virtually eliminated.

Autobra shield is available in light tint acrylic for Porsche 911, 930; BMW 318/325, 320; Toyota Celica, Tercel, Pick-Up; Fiero; Corvette; Mustang GT, and other select automobiles.

2177 Andrea Lane Ft. Myers, FL 33908 Florida (813) 482-5603 Toll Free 1-800-445-2886

Dealer inquiries welcomed

ID: 86-5.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/04/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S.P. Wood for Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Vincent Foster

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Vincent Foster 146 Argilla Road Ipswich, Massachusetts 01938

Dear Mr. Foster:

This responds to your May 23, 1986, letter to Administrator Steed requesting that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) grant permission to your dealer to modify your motor vehicle. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply.

You explained that you are mildly hemiplegic and that your physical condition makes it difficult to use a key on the right side of the steering column. You wish to arrange with your dealer to move the ignition to a new position on the steering column which would enable you to engage the key with your left hand. You asked if you could obtain permission from this agency to permit this modification by the dealer. I hope the following discussion explaining our regulations will be of assistance to you.

I would like to begin by clarifying that there is no procedure by which persons petition for and are granted permission from NHTSA to arrange to have a motor vehicle dealer modify their used motor vehicle. Dealers are permitted to modify used vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to certain regulatory limits on the type of modifications they may make. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our regulations to provide some allowances to a dealer who cannot conform to our regulations when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with handicaps. Since your situation is among those given special consideration by NHTSA, this letter should provide you with the relief you seek.

Our agency is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. Manufacturers and dealers modifying certified vehicles are affected by S108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. It prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any elements of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard.

In general Section 108(a)(2)(A) would require dealers who modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard. Violations of S108(a)(2)(A) are punishable by civil fines up to $1,000 per violation.

In situations such as yours where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular handicap, we have been willing to consider any violation of S108(a)(2)(A) a purely technical one justified by public need. I can assure you that NHTSA would not institute enforcement proceedings against a motor vehicle dealer that modifies the steering column on your vehicle to accommodate your condition. We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made to the steering column to accommodate your condition and we urge your dealer to modify your vehicle in such a manner that would not degrade from the safety currently provided by your vehicle.

I suggest you show this letter to your dealer. If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

January 27, 1986

Ms. Diane Steed Administrator Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Washington, D. C. 20590

RE: Mr. Vincent Foster 1985 Volvo 146 Argilla Road Vin # YVIFX884GG1013278 Ipswich, Mass. 01938

Dear Ms. Steed:

With reference to USA regulation #114 covering the ignition locking system.

Please consider this a request to waive the above regulation and for permission to modify the ignition locking system.

The reason for this is that it would be in the public interest since Mr.

Foster's right hand is totally disabled. He has great difficulty starting the car.

We are planning to install an additional keyed ignition switch in the let side of the steering column.

If you have any questions regarding the above, please contact Mr. Fred Pomeroy or Ms. Karen Gardella at Congressman's Mavarolis Office.

Sincerely,

Mr. Fred Pomeroy Sales Department

FP/jw

Diane Steed Department of Transportation Office of Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Room 5220 7th St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Steed:

I am writing you to request permission to have the ignition of my and newly-purchased Volvo Sedan (1986 model year) changed from its present position additional/ on the right side of the steering column. I bought the car on January 13, 1986, from Sales, Incorporated, of 230 John Street, Reading , Mass. 01867. A mechanic employed by 128 Sales, Incorporated, will make this alteration if and when permission is granted.

I make this request because my right side is mildly hemiplegic as a result of cerebral palsy, due to a birth injury, a circumstance which makes possible turning the key in the ignition of any automobile with my right hand. Since January I have been driving the Volvo, but in order to start it, I must lean far enough over to reach the ignition with my left hand, which is affected by the cerebral palsy. Thus, I can drive with the ignition on the right, but its relocation to the left side of the steering column would be of great assistance.

As a resident of and a voter in the Massachusetts 6th Congressional District, I turned for help---as soon as I was informed that permission would be required---to the office of my Congressman, Mr. Nicholas Mavarolis, one of his aides, Ms. Karen Gardella, has given me all possible help with this matter. She had believed, until today, that the proper procedure for petitioning. Today, both Ms. Gardella and, through her, I learned that, according to Betsy Harrison, Chief Counsel of the Department of Transportation, petitions by the individuals in question. Hence this letter.

My car is an "86 Volvo, Model 744GEO Sedan. Its Vehicle Identification Number is YV1FX8846G1013278. The salesman with whom I dealt with is Fred Pomeroy. I have a Massachusetts Driver's License.

My legal address is 146 Argilla Road, Ipswich, Mass. 01938, and as I stated earlier, I am a registered voter in the Massachusetts Sixth Congressional District. However, for the next few months I will be in Jackson, Florida., where my telephone number, should you for any reason wish to contact me, (606) 356-5916. Your early attention to this question would be greatly appreciated. Thank You very much.

Sincerely,

Vincent Foster

ID: 86-5.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/25/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Doug Bereuter

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

The Honorable Doug Bereuter Member, U.S. House of Representatives P.O. Box 82887 Lincoln, NE 68501

Dear Mr Bereuter:

Thank you for your July 18, 1986, correspondence enclosing a letter from your constituent, Ms. Dianna L. Prosser of Beatrice, who asked about Federal regulations for safety belts on school buses. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply, since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for administering Federal programs relating to school bus safety. I regret the delay in our response.

Ms. Prosser believes that the Federal government should encourage States to enact laws requiring passengers to use safety belts on school buses. She suggests that such a requirement would be consistent with State laws requiring the driver of a passenger car or school bus to use his or her safety belt. She asks also whether any states have enacted requirements for safety belt use in school buses.

I appreciate this opportunity to respond to your constituent's concerns. I would like to begin by clarifying that safety belts are not required by Federal law to be installed for passengers on large school buses. We have been carefully examining the issue of safety belts on large school buses. While NHTSA has often explained that States are free to order safety belts on their large school buses if they wish to do so, we believe that large school buses are very safe and that safety belts for passengers are not needed for safety.

Some background information on our school bus regulations might be helpful. NHTSA is responsible for developing safety standards applicable to all new motor vehicles, including school buses. In 1977, we issued a set of motor vehicle safety standards for various aspects of school bus safety. Included in that set is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. Standard No. 222 requires large school buses--i.e., those with gross vehicle weight ratings over 10,000 pounds--to provide passenger crash protection through a concept called "compartmentalization." Compartmentalization requires that the interior of large buses be improved so that children are protected regardless of whether they have fastened a safety belt. The seating improvements include higher and stronger seat backs, additional seat padding, and better seat spacing and performance. Our safety standards require a safety belt for the school bus driver since the driver's position is not compartmentalized. We also require safety belts for passengers in smaller school buses because those buses experience greater crash forces than do larger buses and the additional restraint system is needed to provide adequate crash protection for passengers.

However, large school buses already offer substantial protection to passengers and a Federal endorsement for safety belts in those vehicles is unnecessary. In addition to meeting Federal school bus safety standards, large school buses are very safe vehicles because of their size and height, the training and experience of their drivers and the extra care that other road users employ in the vicinity of school buses. As stated earlier, NHTSA does not prevent States and local jurisdictions that wish to order safety belts on their own large school buses from doing so. Such a decision is a matter for the officials of the particular State or local jurisdiction, who are best able to assess their own pupil transportation needs.

Issues relating to safety belts in large school buses are discussed in a June, 1985 NHTSA publication entitled "Safety Belts in School Buses." I have enclosed a copy of the report for Ms. Prosser's information.

Ms. Prosser also asked whether any State mandates the installation and use of safety belts in buses. New York has recently required installation of safety belts for passengers in large school buses. Requirements for the use of the belts would be set by the local board of education or board of trustees.

I would like to reiterate that the agency does not endorse installation of safety belts for passengers on large school buses because we believe belts are not necessary to provide adequate crash protection. This contrasts with the data we have with regard to the use of safety belts by persons driving passenger cars. The Department's decision to promote effective State laws requiring the proper use of safety belts in passenger cars reflects our finding that safety belts substantially reduce deaths and serious injuries in a crash. If comparable data were available for school buses, our agency would not hesitate to take necessary and expeditious action.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure

Congress of the United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C.

July 18, 1986

Sir:

The attached communication is sent for your consideration. Please investigate the statements contained therein and forward me the necessary information for reply, returning the enclosed correspondence with your answer.

Yours truly,

DOUG BEREUTER, M.C.

Please respond to: Pat Wergin District Staff P.O. Box 82887 Lincoln, NE 68501

June 27, 1986

Mr. Doug Bereuter Nebraska Representative U. S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Bereuter:

After much consideration, I have decided this issue should be addressed at the national level and not the state level.

Many states now have lawamaking it mandatory to wear seat belts when riding in the front seats of cars. Do any states mandate the provision of and use of seat belts on school buses? I have riden school buses and know that children don't always remain seated as they should. This has to be a source of great distraction for the driver. It it my understanding that school bus drivers must wear seat belts, maybe the children should too.

There was a school bus accident involving one of our city school buses this spring. Several of the students were injured and treated at the hospital, some school days were missed. The bus overturned and students were thrown as it turned. Some of these injuries surely could have been prevented if seat belts had been in use. Constantly, during the school year, we hear of accidents involving school buses that turned out worse.

Your consideration of this matter would be appreciated.

Sincerely, Dianna L. Prosser 705 Elk St. Beatrice, NE 68310

ID: 1984-1.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/27/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. William H. Harper

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. William H. Harper 21109-21st Avenue West Lyonwood, Washington 98306

This is in reply to your letter of January 10, 1984, making our opinion with respect to your plan to ship the frame of a 1959 Lotus 11 to England where a new body will be installed on it. The body is a duplicate of the original. You have asked for the status of the assemblage upon its re-entry into the United States, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

The jurisdiction of the Act covers "motor vehicles" which are defined in pertinent part as those "manufactured primarily for use on the public roads." The photos you enclosed appear to show the Lotus 11 as a racing machine of single seat configuration. We do not consider single seat machines manufactured for competition purposes, and which are not licensed for use on the public roads, to be "motor vehicles." We also regulate "motor vehicle equipment." It follows that individual equipment items intended for use on a competition vehicle are not considered "motor vehicle equipment" subject to our jurisdiction and regulation. Therefore, if your Lotus 11 has not been licensed for use on the public roads, in our opinion you are not subject to the requirements of this agency including posting a compliance bond upon re-entry of the assemblage.

Even if the Lotus 11 has been licensed for use on the roads and is a "motor vehicle," your responsibilities, if any, would appear to be minimal. Although a "motor vehicle" manufactured before January 1, 1968, is not covered by the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, those standards do cover certain items of replacement equipment which must themselves conform upon entry into the U.S. You have told us that all equipment items will be detached from the frame before its shipment to England, and that upon its return, the assemblage will consist only of the old frame and the new body, minus its windshield, mirrors, and gas tank, as well as brakes, wheels, lighting equipment, door handles, etc. There are no Federal safety standards for frames or bodies of the nature you describe, and therefore this assemblage of "motor vehicle equipment" may also enter free of a compliance bond. However, if you subsequently decide to import brake hoses, lighting equipment, tires, brake fluid, glazing materials, or seat belt assemblies, these items would have to be certified as meeting the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards in order to be imported.

We hope that this has been helpful to you. If you have any further questions you may phone Taylor Vinson of this office (202) 426-9511.

Sincerely, Original signed by Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

January 10, 1984 William H. Harper 12209-21st Avenue W Lynwood, Washington 98036

Chief Counsel's Office of NHTSA 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sirs,

I am the owner of a 1959 Lotus 11, serial #231, which I am restoring to original condition. As part of this process I am shipping the bare frame of the car back to England where the firm of Williams & Pritchard, who made the original body in 1959, will make a new body for the car. This new body will be an exact duplicate of the original made in 1959. When the body is finished, it will be attached to the frame and shipped back to myself in Seattle, Washington.

In talking to Don Davidson of U.S. Customs in Seattle (206-442-5370) I was advised that I would have to post a compliance bond upon re-entry of the frame/body into the U.S., unless I could get favorable written clarification from the NHTSA on its status. This is in question as to whether or not the car would now have to meet 1984 regulations, whether or not it is now classed as a 1959 or 1984 car, or whether it is a car at all or an "item of motor vehicle equipment".

It is my belief that this new body should be classed as an "item of motor vehicle equipment" and not as a car just because the frame has made a round trip to England to assist in the manufacture of the new body. It is also my belief that since it is being used in the restoration of a car and in absolutely no way associated with a "replica" car that this new body should not have to meet any 1984 standards such as bumpers or door intrusion. What I need from your office is a written ruling/opinion on these matters which will clarify them for U.S. Customs.

The addendum contains information that may assist you in making a decision. If you have further questions I may be reached at 206-775-5728 (home) or 206-655-7814 (work). Collect calls can be accepted at the first number prior to 9:30 EST. Your prompt and speedy reply would be greatly appreciated as the frame was originally scheduled to be shipped to England on January 30 prior to this problem developing. I want to clarify this matter before I ship anything out of the U.S.

Sincerely, Original signed by William H. Harper

Addendum

Only the original bare frame is being sent to England. By bare frame I mean that there is no suspension, axles, brakes, wheels, engine, transmission, or anything else attached to the frame. These parts are all staying in the U.S., will be rebuilt, and will be reinstalled onto the original frame upon its return to the U.S. The original frame will not be modified in any way while in England and is only being sent there so that the new body may be built around and attached to the frame, as the original was. The new body is being made because the original is badly damaged, torn, and corroded. The new body will be made entirely of aluminum and will have no windshield, headlights, taillights, door handles, etc. attached. These parts from the original body will be reattached to the new body in the U.S. All that is coming back to the U.S. is the original frame with a new hare, unpainted aluminum body attached to it.

Enclosed are two photographs. One shows the complete body attached to the frame and the other is with the upper half of the body removed, showing the lower half of the body and part of the frame. The light grey or rusty steel tubing is the frame and anything made of aluminum is what I call the body. These pictures are of the current "old" body and were taken during disassembly of the car prior to begining its restoration. The windshield, mirrors, and gas tank that are shown in the pictures will not be shipped to England nor will duplicates of these parts be made there. When the frame/body combination returns from England it will look like these pictures; except minus windshield, mirrors, and gas tank of course.

Insert picture here

ID: nht79-2.2

DATE: 09/28/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: P. L. Whitehorn

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 31, 1979, following your discussion with Mr. Vinson of this office.

Your client, ZEMCO Inc., has developed a fuel saving device for the automobile aftermarket the operation of which you have described as follows:

". . . if a vehicle approached a read light requiring the driver to stop . . . several seconds after the accelerator was released and the automobile stopped the device would automatically shut off the engine. To restart, the driver would press the accelerator pedal and the device would automatically trigger the ignition to start the engine."

In your opinion two Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards appear to conflict with the ZEMCO device, Standards Nos. 102 and 124. Paragraph S3.1.3 of 49 CFR 571.102, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 102 imposes a starter interlock requirement under which "the engine starter shall be inoperative when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position." You point out that ZEMCO's device "has been designed to automatically restart the engine with the transmission in either forward or reverse." Paragraph S5.1 of 49 CFR 571.124, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 124 requires the throttle to return to the idle position within a specified time period "whenever the driver removes the opposing actuating force." The ZEMCO device shuts off the engine several seconds after driver's foot is removed from the accelerator.

You have cited Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act which prohibits the manufacture of any item of motor vehicle equipment that does not conform to Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and Section 108(a)(2)(A) which forbids manufacturers, distributors, dealers and motor vehicle repair businesses from "Knowingly rendering inoperative . . . any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle. . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

You have asked whether the ZEMCO device is in conflict with the Act.

The ZEMCO device does not violate Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act. Although it is an item of "motor vehicle equipment" as defined by Section 102(a) of the Act, there is no Federal motor vehicle safety standard applicable to a device of this nature, so that its manufacture and sale would not be a violation of Section 108(a)(1)(A).

With respect to Section 108(a)(2)(A) we do not see that the device conflicts with Standard No. 124 as long as the device does not prevent the accelerator from returning to idle in the standard's specified time period before the engine is shut off. The ZEMCO device appears to come into play after the accelerator has return to idle, a period of time outside the coverage of the standard.

You are correct, however, in your concern with Standard No. 102 as the activation of the starter in forward or reverse gear is diametrically opposed to the standard's requirement. Its installation would appear to "render inoperative" the starter interlock that is required by Standard No. 102. Although ZEMCO's manufacture of the device would not violate Section 108(a)(2)(A), its installation by a person other than the vehicle owner would appear to.

You are also correct that this agency has not issued the regulation authorized by Section 108(a)(2)(B) under which any person may be exempted from Section 108(a) (2) (A) upon a determination that the exemption is consistent with motor vehicle safety and the purposes of the Act.

If you wish to petition the agency to issue such a regulation or to amend Standard No. 102 in an appropriate manner you have, of course, the right to do so, and I enclose a copy of our petition procedures, 49 CFR Part 552, for your information.

I return your patent materials herewith.

SINCERELY,

CANNADY & WHITEHORN

August 31, 1979

Frank Berndt, ESQ Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

RE: Petition for Exemption from Section 108 of Title I of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We are counsel for ZEMCO, INC., a California corporation. ZEMCO is in the process of developing a fuel or gasoline saving device for the automobile aftermarket. A literal reading of Section 108 of Title I of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 suggests that ZEMCO's fuel saving device is in conflict with Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 102 and 124. We discussed this problem with Mr. Benson of your office, earlier this week, and he advised us to furnish your office with more particulars. Mr. Benson also suggested that we request a clarification and interpretation of the Act as it applies to ZEMCO's device.

The ZEMCO fuel saving device will automatically control the shutdown and restarting of a vehicle engine in order to conserve fuel at times when the vehicle would be otherwise stopped, with the engine running at idle speed. For example if a vehicle approached a red light requiring the driver to stop at the limit line, several seconds after the accelerator was released and the automobile stopped the device would automatically shut off the engine. To restart, the driver would press the accelerator pedal and the device would automatically trigger the ignition to start the engine. A copy of ZEMCO's confidential patent application is enclosed which more fully describes the fuel saving device.

Two motor vehicle safety standards appear to conflict with the application of ZEMCO's device to motor vehicles. Standard No. 102 requires an interlock to prevent starting of the car with the transmission shift lever in the forward or reverse drive positions. ZEMCO's fuel saving device has been designed to automatically restart the engine with the transmission in either forward or reverse.

Standard No. 124 requires the vehicle's throttle to return to the idle position when the driver's foot is removed from the accelerator. ZEMCO's device would of course go further and shut off the engine several seconds after the driver's foot is removed from the accelerator.

As you know, Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act provides in part that "no person shall manufacture for sale . . . any . . . item of motor vehicle equipment . . . unless it is in conformity . . . " with the motor vehicle safety standards. Subparagraph (2) (A) further provided in part that "no manufacturer . . . 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 . . . "

We understand from our discussions with Mr. Benson that the Secretary of Transportation has not yet issued regulations for the granting of exemptions from the act. However it is our understanding that the Office of the Chief Counsel will issue interpretations and clarify potential conflicts between safety standards and proposed automotive devices. The ZEMCO fuel saving device, although in technical conflict with the safety standards mentioned above, has been carefully designed to be compatible and consistent with motor vehicle safety.

Therefore, on behalf of ZEMCO, we respectfully request a clarification and interpretation of the Act particularly with respect to the potential conflict between Safety Standards Nos 102 and 124 and ZEMCO's fuel saving device. Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Phillip L. Whitehorn

cc: JOAN CLAYBROOK; ZEMCO, INC.

ID: nht79-2.47

DATE: 03/16/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Vespa of America Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: We have received your letter of January 22, 1979, petitioning for a determination that a possible noncompliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.

This is to inform you that upon review of Mr. Levin's letter to you of March 14, 1978, and examination of the turn signal system employed on Vespa motor scooters, we have determined that there is no failure to comply with the standard and your petition is moot.

Vespa brought to our attention the fact that S4.5.6 of Standard No. 108 requires each vehicle equipped with a turn signal operating unit to have an illuminated pilot indicator but SAE Standard J588e, incorporated by reference, requires it only if turn signal lamps are not readily visible to the driver. Mr. Levin informed Vespa that, if all turn signal lamps were readily visible to the driver, no pilot indicator was necessary. Mr. Levin continued by saying:

"If the driver must turn his head to the rear to check the operation of turn signal lamps, then those lamps are not 'readily visible to the driver' and a turn signal indicator must be provided."

You have now informed us that you believe the turn signal system on Vespa motor scooter manufactured between March 1975 and the latter part of 1977 "are the functional equivalent of turn signal indicators", specifically

"The turn signal systems . . . are designed so that in the event of a failure of either rear turn signal lamp, the appropriate front turn signal lamp will flash at three times the normal rate. As the front turn signal lamps and their flash rates are readily visible at all times to the operator, any turn signal malfunction will be readily apparent to the operator."

We agree with your conclusion. The rapid flash rate will indicate the presence of a problem in either the front or rear turn signal system and the equivalent of a turn signal indicator appears to have been provided.

SINCERELY,

vespa of america corporation PIAGGIO GROUP

January 22, 1979

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attn: Joan Claybrook, Administration Petition for Exemption

Gentlemen:

Vespa of America Corporation ("Vespa") respectfully submits its petition for exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the "Act") pursuant to 49 CFR S 556.4 with respect to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's November 14, 1977 notification of possible non-compliance with Section 4.5.6 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Vespa is incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business at 355 Valley Drive, Brisbane, California 94005. The motor vehicles involved are Vespa motor scooters manufactured by Piaggioe & C. S.p.A. and imported into the United States by Vespa from March of 1975 through December of 1977.

On October 14, 1977, Vespa received notification from Mr. Francis Armstrong (letter ref. NMV-22 GSH CIr. 1627.2) that Vespa motor scooters with obtainable speeds of over 30 MPH were required to be equipped with a turn signal indicator under Section 4.5.6 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. On October 24, 1977, Vespa responded to the Administration pointing out the apparent inconsistency between Section 4.5.6 and SAE Standard J588e. On March 17, 1978, Vespa received a response from Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Esq., the Administration's Chief Counsel (letter ref. NOA-30) acknowledging this inconsistency and indicating that vehicles equipped with signal lamps readily visible to the driver in compliance with SAE Standard J588 (e) did not need to be equipped with an illuminated pilot indicator in order to comply with the Act. Mr. Levin interpreted the phrase "readily visible to the driver" to require that all turn signals (both front and rear) must be visible to a driver facing forward in the normal driving position.

For the reasons hereinafter set forth, Vespa believes that the turn signal lamps on the affected vehicles are in substantial compliance with Section 4.5.1 of SAE Standard J588 (e) and that, because of their location, visibility and operation, these turn signal lamps are the functional equivalent of the turn signal indicators required by SAE Standard J588 (e). Vespa accordingly believes that any non-compliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.

Although the affected vehicles are not equipped with a separate illuminated turn signal indicator, Vespa motor scooters incorporate an alternate but equally effective method for operator notification of turn signal malfunction. The turn signal systems in the motor vehicles involved are designed so that in the event of a failure of either rear turn signal lamp, the appropriate front signal lamp will flash at three times the normal rate. As the front turn signal lamps and their flash rates are readily visible at all times to the operator, any turn signal malfunction will be readily apparent to the operator.

It is apparent that the purpose of both sections is to afford the driver with an immediate and readily visible indication that a failure in the turn signal system has occurred. Vespa believes that its present system completely satisfies this objective and that no modification of any sort would increase the safety of the vehicle or would increase the driver's ability to detect any failure in the turn signal system.

To require Vespa to modify and equip all vehicles which have been imported into the United States since its formation in March of 1975 with an additional turn signal pilot indicator lamp would impose an impossible financial burden on the corporation which could quite possibly result in the insolvency of the corporation. The modifications which would be required would entail a major modification of the existing headlight housing and a total revision of the existing electrical system. The estimated cost of bringing all vehicles into strict compliance with the Act's standards will exceed $ 493,000. A breakdown of the estimated cost is attached hereto as Attachment I.

The Vespa motor scooter was redesigned in the latter part of 1977 and the turn indicators on the new model are no longer readily visible to the operator. Accordingly, all new models are equipped with illuminated turn signal indicators which meet the Act's requirements.

In light of the foregoing, we respectfully request that Vespa be exempted from the requirements of Section 4.5.6 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and from the requirements of Section 4.5.1 of SAE Standard J588e with respect to all Vespa motor scooters imported from March of 1975 through December of 1977.

Bruno Porrati President

ATTACHMENT I

NOTIFICATION REPAIR COST BREAKDOWN

Approximate total of effected vehicles imported by Vespa of America Corporation since March 1975 - 4,500

Notification Costs:

(Customer & Dealer) $ 8,000.00

Repair Cost:

Time allotted for unit repair - 5 hrs. @ $ 20.00 per hour

(100.00 x 4,500) = $ 450,000.00

Special Tools needed - $ 20.00/tool

(20.00 x 425 dealers appx.) = $ 8,500.00

Cost of Replacement Parts - $ 6.00 per vehicle

($ 6.00 x 4,500) = $ 27,000.00

TOTAL $ 493,500.00

ID: nht81-3.44

DATE: 11/30/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: K. G. Moyer

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 4/1/88 (EST) LETTER FROM MICHAEL FINKELSTEIN TO CARL KAPLAN (STD. 108); 3/7/88 MEMO FROM ERIKA JONES; 5/2/84 LETTER FROM FRANK BERNDT TO LAWRENCE F. HENNEBERGER

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 22, 1981, about your "alert device which automatically turns on the stop lamps of the vehicle when the accelerator is released." You wish our permission to install the device for experimentation and testing on other vehicles, as well as an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 whether your device is allowable.

As you know, the agency has devoted considerable effort to improve rear braking signals, culminating in its proposal that passenger cars be equipped with a single high-mounted stop lamp on the centerline of the vehicle. The concept of a pre-brake application signal is a familiar one to us, but the agency has conducted no formal research with respect to it, and in view of its stop-lamp proposal, is unlikely to do so. The technical issues that we consider relevant to your concept are (1) whether most rear-end accidents are preceded by a "panic" stop by the struck vehicle, (2) whether panic stops involve unique driver behavior that can be reliably discriminated from non-panic stop behaviour and used to trigger a pre-braking signal, and (3) whether the resulting signal will automatically result in a decrease in the reaction time of following drivers that is equal to the early warning time it provides. We know of no scientifically acceptable data that support these critical assumptions. We are especially concerned that a high rate of "false alarms" may lead to a decrease in the overall warning value of the stop lamp signal itself, i.e., the "cry wolf" phenomenon. This could lead to a significant reduction in the effectiveness of any proposed system.

Paragraph 2.1 of SAE Standard J586d, Stop Lamps, September 1977, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, defines a stop lamp as one whose operation indicates "the intention of the operator of a vehicle to stop or diminish speed by braking."

Your device would activate the stop lamp under a condition indicating an intent other than the above, which could impair the effectiveness of the stop lamps. We view any use of required lighting equipment for a purpose other than as defined, as an "impairment" within the prohibition of paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108 if the device is installed as original equipment. If the device is sold in the after-market, our laws preclude modifications that "render ineffective in whole or in part" required lighting equipment, if the modifications are performed by a person other than the vehicle owner. We would consider your system prohibited by this provision as well.

Noting your comment that the device may be used for testing on school buses, this means that there is no prohibition under the laws that we administer which would forbid a school district from installing your device on its fleet. Such a modification would be subject to laws of the jurisdiction in which the school bus is registered and operates.

SINCERELY,

September 22, 1981

To: Frank Berndt Chief Counsel NHTS Administrator

Subject: Installation of Automatic Safety Alert Device on Motor Vehicles

I currently have an alert device which automatically turns on the stop lights of the vehicle when the accelerator is released. This installation is simple, inexpensive and easy to install. I am requesting your consideration and permission for installing this device for experimentation and testing on school busses and other motor vehicles.

I am also requesting interpretation of 49 CFR 571, S108 to determine if this device meets the requirements for installation on motor vehicles under this provision.

On September 15, 1981, a vehicle (1981 Citation), with this alert device installed, was inspected by Dr. Carl Clark and his associates and all pertinent data is on file in his office.

If further testing or inspection of this car is required, I would return to Washington at any time. I would also consider allowing the use of this car for a period of testing by your office or will furnish any additional information required.

If interpretation of 49 CFR 571, S108 is not favorable, or if this alert device is not considered under this provision, I will petition for modification of the rules to allow use of this device on motor vehicles on an individual basis, in accordance with Part 552.

Your early consideration of this matter will be greatly appreciated.

Kenneth G. Moyer

PETITION

To: Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 SEVENTH STREET WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590

I, Kenneth G. Moyer, of 6400 Goldbranch Road, Columbia, S. C. 29206, petition for a change in rulemaking standards to allow this Automatic Safety Alert Device to be installed on motor vehicles, on an individual basis, in accordance with 49 CFR 571,S108.

Claim: An early-warning electrical system for vehicles of the type characterized by a normally open warning switch, mechanically co-operating with the accelerator pedal and throttle linkage and electrically connected to the vehicle rear light circuit to automatically light the brake lights when the pressure on the accelerator pedal is removed. The brake lights which are lit by applying pressure to the brake pedl are red in color and are universally recognized as indication that the vehicle is about to slow or stop. This alert device allows the brake light system to be activated when there is no pressure on the accelerator pedal.

The primary object of this device is to provide a simple and inexpensive warning system to be installed on vehicles without making changes to the linkage system and is designed to operate separately of the brake pedal switch.

This warning system alerts following drivers that the vehicles speed is decreasing and, therefore, provides time for the following driver to avoid a dangerous condition.

This alert device has been approved for use in the state of South Carolina. My contact is Maj. Lanier, phone-803-758-3315, of the South Carolina Highway Department.

I am to meet with the Highway Transportation Department in ten days to discuss installing this device on South Carolina school busses. My contact is Ralph Hendricks, phone-803-758-2762.

One U. S. car manufacturer and one foreign firm have requested information on this alert device for possible installation on new cars.

In view of the enclosed information, I request this petition be considered for a change in rulemaking standards, in accordance with 49 CFR 571,S108.

With this alert device installed on motor vehicles, it could possibly decrease the excessively high rate of rear-end collisions.

No alert devices are installed on any vehicles except those I personally own.

This alert device does not affect the normal operation of the brake pedal to operate the stop lights when the brake pedal is applied.

I am awaiting the results of consideration by the National Highway Safety Administration.

ID: nht80-2.15

DATE: 04/24/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: TRW, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

April 24, 1980 NOA-30

Mr. Nicholas M. Stefano Manager, Mechanical Device Development Advanced Systems Engineering TRW, Inc. Building E2, Room 4O62 One Space Park Redondo Beach, California 90278

Dear Mr. Stefano:

This responds to your letter of January 7, 1980, in which you described an automotive, electronic display device being designed by TRW and asked for a legal opinion as to its potential compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 127, Speedometers and Odometers. You noted that, upon installation in a motor vehicle, TRW's device would continuously display vehicle and engine speed readings in the form of a bargraph. In potentially hazardous situations requiring the driver to take extra caution or to shut down the vehicle's engine, the TRW device would intermittently interrupt the display of vehicle and engine speeds with sequences of verbal messages. In light of this, you asked whether the fact that TRW's device would not display the vehicle speed during every moment of vehicle operation would prevent it from complying with Safety Standard No. 127.

Based on our understanding of your design, it appears that alternating the display of speed and verbal messages would not violate the standard. Although the future development of electronic digital speedometers was considered in the development of Safety Standard No. 127, the specific type of device described in your letter was not contemplated. The agency had expected that all speedometers would continuously display vehicle speed. While the intermittent display feature would apparently not violate Safety Sandard No. 127 as it is now written, we are concerned about the possible adverse impact upon traffic safety that this feature might have. In particular, we have in mind the effects of a driver's being unable to determine vehicle speed when he or she is approaching or negotiating a curve or exit ramp. Rapid deceleration to a particular speed is typically necessary in auch situations. In the case of a speedometer which periodically does not display vehicle speed for periods of 5 seconds, a vehicle that interval and a vehicle traveling at 40 mph, approximately 300 feet.

Although your alternative mode of operation would reduce this interval through flashing the speed for periods of 0.10 seconds, we question whether such a short period would be sufficient to enable drivers to read their speedometers. We solicit any tests or research that TRW has done on the safety side effects of your design. A member of the agency's accident avoidance division will contact you to discuss this issue further.

In looking at your design, we noted several aspects of it that would apparently not comply with Safety Standard No. 127. The design does not appear to be graduated in both miles and kilometers per hour as required by Section 9.1.2. Further, the design neither has the numeral 55 nor highlights either that numeral or the point at which vehicle speed equals 55 mph as required by section 4.1.5.

Finally, I would emphasize that this letter represents only the agency's opinion based on the information supplied in your letter. The NHTSA does not formally render judgment on the compliance of any vehicle or equipment design with any safety standard before the manufacturer's certification of its product. It is the manufacturer's responsibility under the law to determine whether its vehicle or equipment comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations and to certify its vehicles in accordance with that determination.

I hope that you will find this response helpful and have not been inconvenienced by our delay in sending it to you.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

1272.1-80-02 January 7, 1980

Legal Counsel National Highway Transportation Safety Administration Department of Transportation 400 - 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Subject: Federal Motor Vehicle Standard No. 127

Dear Sir:

TRW is in the process of designing electronic display devices for the drivers of automobiles, trucks, tractors, off-highway vehicles, and agricultural equipment. One design concept utilizes a fluorescent display tube with 20 character positions which displays in bargraph form the vehicle speed and the engine RPM. The display is driven by a microprocessor. The microprocessor also collects data from a number of sensors that check the water level in the radiator, the water temperature and engine oil pressure. We intend to use the same display tube that shows speed and RPM to alert the driver to (1) conditions requiring caution on his part; or (2) to "dangerous" conditions requiring shutdown of the engine to avoid serious damage to the engine.

The microprocessor can drive the tube to provide a sequence of displays as shown in Figures 1 and 2 attached. In Figure 1 the top line shows a box for each of the 20 character positions. The speed is 48 MPH as indicated by the top bargraph; and the engine is running at 1220 RPM, as seen from the bottom bargraph in the top display. When the microprocessor detects a "caution" or "danger" condition, it immediately removes both bargraph messages and conveys a message to the driver in a series of 0.9 second ON and 0. 1 second OFF displays, as can be seen by reading the messages on each display line, reading from top to bottom.

In the case of the "caution" message, after 5 seconds the bargraphs return to a steady display condition for 15 seconds. The "caution" message is then repeated for 5 seconds, followed by 15 seconds of steady bargraph display. This message mode is continued until (1) the driver takes some action to change the situation; or (2) the situation changes from a "caution" to a "danger" condition. Figure 2 shows what happens in the latter case.

Subject regulation No. 127 does not offer any guidance to the engineer concerned with these new display concepts since the concepts were not anticipated at the time the regulation was prepared. If the legal interpretation is that the driver must have the vehicle speed displayed to him at every moment, an alternative mode of programming the display would utilize the 0.10 second OFF time slot to display the bargraph for MPH. In this case, the MPH information would not be seen by the driver for only 0.9 seconds (instead of 5 seconds, as in the previous sequence mode).

In either scheme, the basic reason for using one tube to display both MPH/ RPM and caution/danger messages is that the driver is constantly scanning MPH and RPM and will therefore be alerted sooner to a potential breakdown. It is also less costly to the truck purchaser because the cost of the second tube and its associated wiring is eliminated.

We would very much appreciate your guidance in this matter. We have talked by telephone to NHTSA technical personnel at your San Francisco and Washington offices and they have advised that we should seek your legal interpretation.

Very truly yours,

Nicholas M. Stefano

NMS:ml Attachments (2): Figure 1. Caution Message Sequence (Typical) Figure 2. Danger Message Sequence (Typical)

ID: nht79-4.5

DATE: 10/01/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter requesting an interpretation concerning the proper "designated seating capacity" for three hypothetical seat designs. You ask whether each of the designs would be permitted to have only two "designated seating positions."

The amended definition of "designated seating position" provides, in part, that any bench or split-bench seat having greater than 50 inches of hip room shall have not less than three designated seating positions, unless the seat design or vehicle design is such that the center position cannot be used for seating. Your three hypothetical designs are derived from a basic seat design having 52 inches of hip room (Figure 1 in your letter). This basic design would be required to have three designated seating positions since it has greater than 50 inches of hip room, unless the center position cannot be used because of some obstruction or other impediment. You ask whether the agency would consider the three hypothetical designs illustrated in your letter to adequately establish impediments to use of the center position.

Your "Figure 2" illustrates an unpadded depression at the center position of the bench seat. Since this center depression is unpadded, 3.1 inches deep and 6.7 inches wide, it is the agency's opinion that the center position lacks an essential attribute of a seating position and would not likely be used for seating (even though there might be some unorthodox use of the position from time to time). If a seat of this design is equipped with seat belt assemblies, location of assembly hardware in the center depression would further clarify that the area is not a seating position. It must be emphasized, however, that designs of this type would be required to have three designated seating positions if the depth and width of the depression is so minimal that a person could easily straddle the depression and use the center position. Also, stiffness of seat belt assembly hardware located in the center depression becomes a more determinative factor the more narrow the width of such a depression.

The seat design illustrated in "Figure 3" of your letter includes a "partition pipe" at the center of the seat cushion. Whether such a design would preclude the use of the center position would depend greatly on the physical dimensions and characteristics of the "pipe" that is used and whether it is removable. If the "pipe" were made of soft, pliable padding similar to the other portions of the seat, for example, the "pipe" might not be sufficient to discourage use of the center position. Since your letter provides no information on the nature of the "partition pipe" that is illustrated, the agency cannot offer an opinion concerning this design.

In "Figure 4," there is a padded "swelling" in the center seat position. Although the Figure specifies a height of 3.9 inches at the front of the "swelling," it appears that the "swelling" slants down toward the seat back so that it is only about one-half inch high where it joins the seat back. The illustration also does not describe whether the "swelling" is made of soft padding or of some rigid material. Without this information, the agency cannot offer an opinion concerning this design. I would point out, however, that if the "swelling" is made of soft, flexible padding, it would not likely discour age use of the center position. In fact, if as it appears the "swelling" slants down to the seat back to create a "saddle effect," young children might be encouraged to use this center position.

To summarize, it is the agency's opinion that "Figure 2" in your letter illustrates a seat design that could qualify as having two designated seating positions. Regarding Figures 3 and 4, your letter did not include sufficient information for the agency to provide an opinion. On the basis of the information that was provided, however, I would say that these two designs are very dubious and do not indicate an adequate attempt on the part of the manufacturer to clarify that the center position is not to be used. It does not behoove a manufacturer to attempt to come narrowly within the meaning of the amended definition of "designated seating position." It would be much wiser to make sure that there is no question that the center position is not to be used. In the design illustrated in your "Figure 4," for example, you could easily design the "swelling" to be 4 or more inches tall from front to rear and made of a rigid material, and there would be no question concerning your compliance.

Finally, I would emphasize that this letter only represents the agency's opinion based on the information supplied in your letter. The NHTSA does not pass approval on any vehicle design, for any safety standards, prior to the actual events that underlie certification. It is up to the manufacturer to determine whether its vehicles comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations, and to certify its vehicles in accordance with that determination.

SINCERELY,

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD. ENGINEERING OFFICE OF NORTH AMERICA

August 13, 1979

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I would like to ask you for your interpretations concerning FMVSS "Designated Seating Position". Final Rule, issued on April 19, 1979 in the Federal Register.

At the NHTSA/Industry meeting in June, NHTSA said that if manufacturers have close questions as to whether or not there must be two or three designated seating positions in their particular configuration of the vehicle and seat, they may send NHTSA their letter concerning this matter. Therefore, we would like to as (Illegible Word) your interpretations as to whether there may be able to be only two designated seating positions in the seat configurations of our Questions (a), (b) and (c), which are derived from the basic seat (shown in Figure 1). Because we need to start designing our 1981 model seats, your prompt answers will be appreciated. Please treat our material as confidential.

Request withdrawn 8/31/79

Hisakazu Murakami Technical Representative Safety

ENC.

cc: HUGH OATES. RALPH HITCHCOCK; GUY HUNTER

Questions

Do you consider the following seat configurations (a) (b) and (c) to be two designated seating positions which are derived from the basic seat (as shown in Figure 1)?

Figure 1

Note: There is a hard board covered with vinyl-chloride leather on the bottom of the depression with a 3.1 inch depth at the center of the seat cushion.

(Graphics omitted)

Note: There is a partition pipe at the center of the seat cushion.

Figure 3

Note: At the center of the seat cushion, there is a 3.9 inch swelling.

Figure 4

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht78-3.13

DATE: 02/13/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Emil M. Mrak

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 12, 1977, to Secretary of Transportation, Mr. Brock Adams, concerning the seat belts in your automobile.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires that the distance between the lap-shoulder belt intersection and the vertical centerline of a 50th percentile (164 pounds, 5 feet 8 inches) adult male occupant must be at least six inches when the seat is in its rearmost position. The purpose of this requirement is to reduce the risk of the occupant "submarining" out from under the belt and to reduce the possibility of the shoulder belt pulling the lap belt up onto the abdomen where it could cause serious injury in a crash.

The possibility of submarining increases as the intersection of the lap-shoulder belt is moved toward the occupant's center-line and/or as seat cushion rigidity is reduced. In other words, the closer the intersection of the lap-shoulder belt is to the centerline of the occupant, and the softer the seat, the more the danger of "submarining" in a crash. The standard does not limit the maximum distance from the occupant's centerline to the lap-shoulder belt intersection because of varying degrees of seat rigidity and installation configurations. Thus, contrary to what you may have been told, manufacturers who provide belt systems with distances greater than six inches do so by choice and not because they are required to do so by Federal standards.

Thank you for informing us of your problem.

SINCERELY,

December 12, 1977

The Honorable Brockman Adams The Secretary of Transportation

Dear Mr. Adams:

Sometime ago I wrote the Ford Company complaining about the inaccessibility of the short portion of the seat belt to a person who is up in years. I pointed out that because of the extreme difficulty of hitching these up, more and more people are failing to use seat belts. Furthermore, the twisting and squirming required could very well result in backbone injuries to elderly people.

I was astounded to receive a letter from the Ford Company indicating that the Federal Standards required such a belt. This is hard for me to believe. In any event, I would appreciate knowing if what they told me is the truth, and if it is, then, the truth, I would strongly recommend that this requirement be revised. If it is not a requirement, then I think the Ford Company should be told to take the blame off the Department of Transportation.

If Congressional help is needed to make such a change, I would be glad to pursue it.

I am enclosing copies of my letter to Mr. Wilson of the Ford Company and also his reply, which as indicated above, astonished me.

Emil M. Mrak

ENCLS.

December 12, 1977

A. S. Wilson Ford Parts and Service Division Ford Motor Company

Dear Mr. Wilson:

I am enclosing a copy of a letter I have written to the Secretary of Transportation, Brockman Adams, which is self-explanatory.

I feel so strongly in this matter that I would go to certain of my friends in Congress, if need be, and as much as I dislike most of the things that Nader does, I would even be willing to go to him.

Emil M. Mrak

ENC.

Ford Parts and Service Division Ford Motor Company

November 23, 1977

Emil M. Mrak

Dear Mr. Mrak:

We are sorry to learn of the problem you are experiencing using the seat belts in your Cougar Brougham. As you probably know, the Ford Motor Company has been an active proponent of the use of seat belt systems for many years. Ford does not have complete freedom, however, in selecting the design of the seat belt system since the Federal government does impose requirements that seat belt systems must meet. An explanation of certain of these requirements may be helpful in giving you a better understanding of why present seat belt systems are different than those you may have been accustomed to using.

For all passenger vehicles built after January 1, 1972, Federal safety standards require the installation of a three-point seat belt system; that is, a combination lap belt and shoulder harness. The Federal standard also requires that the intersection or attaching point of the shoulder harness to the lap belt be at least six inches from the centerline of an average size adult male. In the opinion of the Federal authorities, this intersection point offers the best protection to occupants using the shoulder harness. In order for Ford to satisfy this requirement, it is necessary to limit the length of the buckle portion of the lap belt.

It is clear from your letter that shortening the buckle portion of the lap belt has created a problem for some people. We regret the inconvenience but hope that it will not deter you from continuing to use the seat belt system when operating your vehicle.

We appreciate the interest you have shown in this matter and thank you for giving us the opportunity to respond to your questions.

A. S. Wilson Owner Relations

November 10, 1977

A. S. Wilson Ford Parts and Service Division Ford Motor Company

Dear Mr. Wilson:

In May I wrote to you concerning problems with my seat belts in the new Cougar Brougham we had just purchased. You replied on May 17 indicating that I should return to the selling dealer with the complaint.

First of all, I thought I made it clear in my letter that I was not complaining. I was asking for an improvement. In any event, I had the dealer refer to Ford Technical Service Bulletin 100, Article 1290, as indicated in your letter, and this advice was completely useless, and the dealer, as far as I'm concerned, was helpless.

The real problem with the seat belt is that the part attached to the seat is so short that a person of my age finds it literally impossible, or at least very difficult, to squirm around and get it attached.

I am taking the liberty of writing this second letter to you because I have read that fewer and fewer people are using seat belts. I am certain it is because of the fact that it is so difficult to use them. In order to use the belt I must squirm and fuss and work and finally I get it attached. Some day I may well injure a spinal disk.

I think this is a problem for the Ford engineers. When I wrote to you I was asking for an extension so it would be easier to attach them, but I did not get an iota of help from you.

I feel that if anyone not using the belt because of this difficulty should get into an accident and be injured, that person would have a case for suit against the Ford Company because of the inadequacy of the belt hook-ups.

I have felt like writing to the Transportation Department and also to Senator Eagleton, but since I am a stockholder in Ford, I thought I had better wait until I get another reply from you.

Emil M. Mrak

cc: BRUCE WILLIAMS