ID: nht94-3.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 8, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ivan L. Bost -- Director Of Engineering, Comm-Trans

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 4/6/94 From Ivan Bost To Mary Versailles (OCC-9864)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Bost:

This responds to your letter of April 6, 1994, requesting information on the type of seat belt required at the rear outboard seating positions in passenger vans with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 8,500 pounds but less than 10,000 poun ds. Your letter states that these vehicle have a capacity for 10 to 15 persons, including the driver.

Before explaining the safety belt installation requirements for these vehicles, I would like to clarify two of the terms that I will be using. A "rear designated seating position" is any seating position to the rear of the front seat(s). An "outboard d esignated seating position" is a designated seating position within 12 inches of the side of the vehicle. However, the latter term does not include any designated seating position adjacent to a walkway that is located between the seat and the side of th e vehicle and is designed to allow access to more rearward seating positions. Thus, with respect to a passenger van having a two person bench seat behind the front seats, the latter term typically does not include the rightmost of those two positions.

The safety belt installation requirements for all vehicle types are set forth in Standard No. 208. Passenger vans with a seating capacity of 10 persons or less would be considered multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) under NHTSA's regulations. Sectio n S4.2.4 of Standard No. 208 requires the installation of an integral Type 2 (lap/shoulder) seat belt assembly at each forward-facing rear outboard designated seating position in an MPV, other than a motor home, manufactured on or after September 1, 1991 , with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. A Type 1 (lap) or a Type 2 seat belt assembly is required at all other rear designated seating positions. Sections S4.2.4.2 and S4.2.4.3 of Standard No. 208 allow the Type 2 seat belt assembly to have a detachabl e upper torso portion if the seating position can be adjusted to a direction other than forward-facing or if the seat is designed to be easily removed and replaced.

Vans with a seating capacity of more than 10 persons would be considered buses under NHTSA's regulations. Section S4.4.3.2 of

2

Standard No. 208 requires the installation of an integral Type 2 seat belt assembly at each forward-facing rear outboard designated seating position in a bus, other than a school bus, manufactured on or after September 1, 1991, with a GVWR of 10,000 poun ds or less. A Type 1 or a Type 2 seat belt assembly is required at all other rear designated seating positions.

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,

ID: 9864

Mr. Ivan L. Bost
Director of Engineering
Comm-Trans
792 S. Cooper St.
Memphis, TN 38104

Dear Mr. Bost:

This responds to your letter of April 6, 1994, requesting information on the type of seat belt required at the rear outboard seating positions in passenger vans with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 8,500 pounds but less than 10,000 pounds. Your letter states that these vehicle have a capacity for 10 to 15 persons, including the driver.

Before explaining the safety belt installation requirements for these vehicles, I would like to clarify two of the terms that I will be using. A "rear designated seating position" is any seating position to the rear of the front seat(s). An "outboard designated seating position" is a designated seating position within 12 inches of the side of the vehicle. However, the latter term does not include any designated seating position adjacent to a walkway that is located between the seat and the side of the vehicle and is designed to allow access to more rearward seating positions. Thus, with respect to a passenger van having a two person bench seat behind the front seats, the latter term typically does not include the rightmost of those two positions.

The safety belt installation requirements for all vehicle types are set forth in Standard No. 208. Passenger vans with a seating capacity of 10 persons or less would be considered multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) under NHTSA's regulations. Section S4.2.4 of Standard No. 208 requires the installation of an integral Type 2 (lap/shoulder) seat belt assembly at each forward-facing rear outboard designated seating position in an MPV, other than a motor home, manufactured on or after September 1, 1991, with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. A Type 1 (lap) or a Type 2 seat belt assembly is required at all other rear designated seating positions. Sections S4.2.4.2 and S4.2.4.3 of Standard No. 208 allow the Type 2 seat belt assembly to have a detachable upper torso portion if the seating position can be adjusted to a direction other than forward- facing or if the seat is designed to be easily removed and replaced.

Vans with a seating capacity of more than 10 persons would be considered buses under NHTSA's regulations. Section S4.4.3.2 of

Standard No. 208 requires the installation of an integral Type 2 seat belt assembly at each forward- facing rear outboard designated seating position in a bus, other than a school bus, manufactured on or after September 1, 1991, with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. A Type 1 or a Type 2 seat belt assembly is required at all other rear designated seating positions.

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

ref:208 d:6/8/94

ID: aiam5247

"Dear Mr. Hecker: This responds to your letter concerning our June 29 1993, letter to your associate, Mr. Michael Dunn, about the R-Bar Passenger Restraint System (R- Bar). The R-Bar, an item of motor vehicle equipment, is a padded restraining device designed to be mounted on the seat backs of school buses to fold down to restrain the passengers in the next rearward seats. You have further questions about the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) and NHTSA regulations, as applied to R-Bars. In our letter to Mr. Dunn, we addressed several statements that we believed were potentially misleading that Micho made to school officials. These statements include, among other things, that NHTSA has 'approved' R-Bars and that R-Bars are certified as complying with Federal safety standards. We noted that, while Micho indicated that it would refrain from suggesting that NHTSA has approved the R-Bars, we sought assurances that Micho would not continue to represent that it can 'certify' the compliance of R-Bars. You ask for clarification of that letter. You state that there 'appears to be some confusion' resulting from past correspondence with this agency regarding certification of compliance with applicable FMVSSs. You believe, based on previous correspondence, that the R-Bar must comply with FMVSSs that apply to the school bus seat and 'the general safety of school buses,' such as school bus exits and flammability resistance. Accordingly, you believe that Micho can properly 'certify' the R-Bar to these school bus FMVSSs. I appreciate this opportunity to clarify our requirements. By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq. (Safety Act), authorizes this agency to issue FMVSSs for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act establishes a self-certification system whereby the manufacturer of the vehicle or item of equipment is responsible for exercising due care in certifying that the product will, if tested as specified in the applicable FMVSSs, meet the safety requirements in the standards applicable to the product. What constitutes 'due care' in a particular case depends on all relevant facts, including such things as the limitations of current technology, the availability of test equipment, the size of the manufacturer, and above all, the diligence of the manufacturer. Because of the self-certification system established by law, NHTSA can neither approve, disapprove, endorse, nor offer assurances of compliance for any product in advance of the manufacturer's certification of the product. Rather, this agency enforces the standards after the fact by purchasing a vehicle or item of equipment in the retail market and conducting the compliance tests specified in the pertinent standards. The agency also investigates safety- related defects. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a noncompliance or safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of its product and remedying the problem free of charge. The recall responsibility for noncomplying or defective vehicles is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which a product is installed on a new vehicle by that vehicle manufacturer. As stated in our previous letters to your company, there are no FMVSSs specifically applicable to R-Bars. Our school bus FMVSSs apply to whole vehicles, rather than to individual items of school bus equipment. If R-Bars are installed as original equipment on a new school bus, the vehicle manufacturer is required by the Safety Act to certify that, with the devices installed, the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards, including Standard 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.222), Standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release (571.217), Standard 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (571.302), and, with regard to small school buses, the pertinent provisions of Standard 208, Occupant Crash Protection (571.208). 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1), 15 U.S.C. 1403, and 49 CFR Part 567. Because these FMVSSs apply to the vehicle, there are no standards to which Micho can, or must, certify compliance. If the R-Bars are added to a previously-certified new school bus prior to its first sale to a customer, the person who so modifies the vehicle would be an 'alterer' of a previously certified new vehicle. As an alterer, the person would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continued to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. 49 CFR 567.7. The vehicle manufacturer or alterer that installs an R-Bar may, in order to meet its duty to exercise due care, in part rely on information from you concerning the R-Bar's performance characteristics, to the extent such reliance is reasonable. Since compliance with Standard 222 appears to be a significant concern with respect to the installation of R-Bars, you might wish to test a bus or buses equipped with an R-Bar, using the test procedures set out in Standard 222. The results of such tests might be useful to a school bus manufacturer in determining whether it could certify a school bus equipped with R-Bars as complying with Standard 222. If R-Bars were installed on a used school bus, the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business would be required to ensure that by installing the R-Bars, the installer did not knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in the vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. See 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A). In this case, the installer would be responsible for ensuring that the R-Bars did not cause the school bus to fail to comply with any safety standards, including but not limited to the standards enumerated above. This agency has addressed various compliance issues and other safety concerns applicable to R-Bars and similar devices on a number of occasions in the past. As we stated in a letter to Mr. Kenneth A. Gallo dated February 19, 1993, (copy enclosed) the agency believes that the concept of using 'safety bars' as occupant restraining devices in school buses raises significant safety concerns, including whether the bar could result in excessive loads (e.g., abdominal, leg, or chest) on occupants during a crash, as a result of contact between the bar and the occupants. We explained in a July 14, 1992, letter to you (copy enclosed) that the vehicle in which R-Bars are installed must meet the requirements of Standard 222 with the device in any position in which it may be placed. We have said that if a padded restraining device similar to the R-Bar is attached to the seat back, it becomes part of the seat and the device, as folded into its position, must not intrude into the leg protection zone described in S5.3.2 of Standard 222 (NHTSA letter of January 31, 1991, to Mr. Scott Hiler, enclosed). Also enclosed are NHTSA letters of March 10, 1989, and November 3, 1988, to Mr. Joseph Nikoll, which discuss issues concerning installation of 'safety bars' in small school buses in addition to or in lieu of the seat belts required by Standard 208. You asked for our comments on two statements you intend to make to your customers. The first statement is that there are no FMVSSs directly applicable to R-Bars. As discussed above, that statement is correct. The second statement is that, when properly installed, R-Bars will not violate any standard or regulation or render inoperative any safety feature on a school bus. NHTSA lacks information on which to assess the accuracy of that statement. However, it appears unlikely that you could provide such assurances for school buses in general, since the question of whether adding R-Bars would result in a school bus no longer complying with safety standards is likely to depend, at least in part, on factors specific to a particular school bus, such as the seats, floor, etc. Accordingly, absent data to substantiate this statement for all bus configurations and potential installation procedures, we believe that is would not be proper for you to make such a statement. I hope this resolves the issues raised in your letter. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures";

ID: aiam1210

Dear Mr. Woodroof: This is in response to your letter of July 31, 1973, concerning th effect of our Standard 208 on State laws requiring vehicles to be equipped with sear belts.; Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 1 U.S.C. 1392(d), reads:; >>>Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established unde this title is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicles or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. . . .<<<; Standard 208 (49 CFR 571.208) permits passenger cars to be manufacture under any one of several options for occupant crash protection. One of these options is 'complete passive protection', under which the vehicle must undergo a series of rigorous crash tests in which instrumented dummies without belt restraints show force levels that would not create serious injury to a human occupant in most cases. Manufacturers are not required by the standard to have seat belts at any position that meets the requirements of this option.; The NHTSA considers that Section 103(d), quoted above, clearly render void any State laws or regulations to the extent that they would require a vehicle to be equipped with seat belts at seating positions that comply with the complete passive protection option. Any State requirements that are not 'identical' to those of an applicable standard are preempted by that section, under basic Constitutional principles of the supremacy of Federal law.; I am enclosing some information on the efficacy of air cushio restraints, as you requested. We are pleased to be of assistance.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel

ID: 00372Villeneuvedsp

Mr. Pierre Villeneuve
A. Girardin Inc.
Trans Canada Highway
Drummondville (Qubec) J2B 6V4

Dear Mr. Villeneuve:

This responds to your January 6, 2003, e-mail and subsequent telephone conversation with Deirdre Fujita of my staff, asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 225, "Child Restraint Anchorage Systems" (49 CFR 571.225). You ask several questions about a bus that has wheelchair securement devices and only one 34-inch wide forward-facing bench seat in the passenger compartment. You stated in your February 27, 2003 telephone call that the bench seat has two designated seating positions.

Number of Anchorage Systems

Your first question asks how many child restraint anchorage systems must be installed in the vehicle. Assuming the vehicle is subject to FMVSS No. 225 [1] , the answer is two if there are two forward-facing rear designated seating positions on your vehicle. S4.4(b) of FMVSS No. 225 specifies that, in vehicles with not more than two forward-facing rear designated seating positions, a child restraint anchorage system must be installed at each position. Accordingly, an anchorage system must be installed at each of the two forward-facing rear designated seating positions on your vehicle.

Location in Vehicle

Your second question asks whether the bench seat with the anchorage system must be positioned immediately behind the driver, or whether it can be installed in the rear of the bus. FMVSS No. 225 does not specify where a seating position must be located. Instead, the standard specifies locations for child restraint anchorage systems and tether anchorages based on the seating configuration of a particular vehicle. In the case of the subject vehicle, regardless of whether the seat is located directly behind the drivers seat or located at the rear of the vehicle, the seat is the "second row of seating" and therefore two child restraint anchorage systems must be installed on this two-person seat.

If the vehicle were installed with three or more forward-facing rear designated seating positions, then the requirements of S4.4(a) would apply. The requirements for location of child restraint anchorage systems and tether anchorages are determined by considering the number of designated seating positions, the seating row number (e.g., second, third, etc.) and the outboard or non-outboard location of forward-facing designated seating positions. The proximity of seating positions to the drivers seat is not a determining factor apart from the above criteria.

Flip Seat

Your final question asks whether FMVSS No. 225 requires the installation of a child restraint anchorage system in a "flip seat." The key to answering this question is whether the seat contains designated seating positions. "Designated seating position" is defined in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations regulations at 49 CFR 571.3 as:

Any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5^th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design and vehicle design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats. (Emphasis added.)

The agency does not define auxiliary seating accommodations, but has addressed the issue in a number of interpretation letters. The agency has stated that the term "folding jump seat" applies "solely to the type of seat that is used from time to time in such vehicles as taxi cabs and limousines to accommodate, for short periods of time, an excess number of passengers. The usual form of jump seat is a seat that folds down from the rear of the front passenger seat."See April 28, 1971 letter to Mr. Keitaro Nakajima.

The fact that the seat is a flip seat is not determinative as to whether it is excluded from being a designated seating position. We understand that Girardin would installing either a Freedman Feather Weight AM or BV Foldaway. This seat is available from the manufacturer as a one- or two-passenger seat. That is, it does not appear that the seat is

just an auxiliary position. Without information indicating that the flip seats are not designated seating positions, we cannot concur that they would be excluded from having child restraint anchorage systems.

If you have further questions, please contact Dee Fujita at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:225
d.4/29/03





---

[1] Note that a vehicle is subject to the standard depending in part on its classification. In determining a vehicles classification, a wheelchair restraint position counts as either one or four designated seating positions depending on whether the vehicle is intended to be used for pupil transportation. See definition of "designated seating position" in 49 CFR 571.3.

ID: aiam4986

"Dear Mr. Stoll: This responds to your letter of February 27, 1992, t Taylor Vinson of this Office asking several questions relating to center high-mounted stop lamps. Your questions are: '1. Are the LED (light emitting diode) being used for third brake light legal? If so, what are the specifications so that they can be used as a third brake light?' A center high-mounted stop lamp whose illumination is provided by LEDs is legal, provided that the light meets the photometric specifications for such lamp specified in Figure 10 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, and all other requirements. '2. a. Where are the truck manufacturers ie. GM, Ford, Dodge locating the third brake light on pickup trucks? b. What effect will this have on truck cap manufacturers and the dealer responsibility to the consumer? c. Can the dealer wire directly to the existing third brake light harness used to light up the factory third brake light?' With respect to (a), the center lamp may be installed at any point on the rear vertical centerline of pickup trucks. Because this requirement is not effective until September 1, 1993, we have no specific knowledge as to where the manufacturers of pickup trucks will locate the lamps. With respect to (b), NHTSA discussed the relationship of center high-mounted stoplamps to aftermarket slide-in campers or caps in the preamble to the final rule adopting the requirement. I enclose a copy of the rule (56 FR 16015) with our discussion highlighted on pages l6017 and 16018. After reading this material, if you have further questions regarding the effect on truck cap manufacturers and dealers, we shall be pleased to answer them. With respect to (c), we assume that the situation you envision is that a truck cap has been manufactured with a center stop lamp and the dealer is installing the cap on a pickup truck. If the cap is being permanently installed, the dealer may wire the cap's lamp directly to the existing center lamp light harness, as the cap lamp is intended as a surrogate for the original lamp. If the cap is removable, the dealer may also wire in the manner you discuss, provided that when the cap is removed (and the cap lamp disconnected) the original lamp will perform in conformance with Standard No. 108. The specific connections to be made should be done in accordance with the vehicle manufacturer's recommendations. '3. a. We have a customer that would like to mount a flush mounted third brake light in the rear glass window of a truck cap. This window is used also as the rear access door to get to the truck bed from the outside of the truck. b. This would allow the third brake light to be moveable and not stationery. If a consumer would have an object in the bed of the truck with the window in the open position, allowing for the third brake light to be left in an upward position and no longer viewed from the rear. Would this application be approved?' The agency has no authority to approve or disapprove specific designs. We can advise you as to whether designs appear to conform or not to conform with the applicable laws of our agency. Conformance with Standard No. 108 is determined with respect to the vehicle in its normal operating state. With respect to your question, this would be with the pickup cap window in its closed position. Thus, your design does not raise a question of conformance with Standard No. 108. '4. Could you please enter Russell Products, Inc. on your mailing lists for all future updated rulings on third brake lights passed or discussed at all committee meetings?' We do not maintain a mailing list of any sort. However, 'rulings' are not 'passed' at 'committee meetings' but are published in the Federal Register, initially as proposed rules affording a minimum of 45 days in which to comment. After evaluation of comments, a final rule may be published, with an effective date no earlier than 30 days after issuance. We believe it likely that any future proposals and amendments would be publicized, and that you would be likely to hear of them. There are no current plans to amend these requirements. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: aiam0498

Dear Mr. Rudd: This is in reply to your letter of November 16, 1971, in which yo asked whether Standard No. 208 would require seat belt retractors to be installed after January 1, 1972, for the rear occasional seats of the Lotus Elan Plus Two. Our answer is that retractors will be required if the rear seats are 'designated seating positions' as defined in our regulations at 49 CFR 571.3(b). The definition provides, among other things, that to be a designated seating position a seat must accomodate (sic) a 5th percentile adult female. To define an occupant of this size, the regulations incorporate a U.S. Public Health Service publication that includes the following specifications: weight, 104 pounds, standing height, 59 inches, sitting height, 30.9 inches, knee height, 17.9 inches, buttock-knee length, 20.4 inches. If the Elan Plus Two cannot accomodate (sic) a person of this size in the rear seat, it need not have a seat belt retractor for that seat. If such a person can be accomodated (sic), then retractors will be required unless the seat is otherwise exempt by the definition as an 'auxiliary seating accomodation (sic) such as [a (sic) temporary or folding jump seat.' We do not have the information necessary to judge whether the seat is exempt as an auxiliary seating accomodation (sic).; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2725

Dear Mr. Peterson: This responds to your September 20, 1977, letter asserting that th Wisconsin requirement for minimum seat spacing does not conflict with the Federal requirement for maximum seat spacing found in Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*.; Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act o 1966 (the Act) (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq*.) specifies that no State shall have in effect a safety standard concerning an aspect of performance regulated by a Federal safety standard, unless the State standard is identical. The Act provides a limited exception to the above where a State or local municipality has a requirement which applies only to vehicles purchased for their own use and which imposes a higher standard of performance. Both Standard No. 222, which regulates maximum seat spacing, and the Wisconsin standard, which regulates minimum seat spacing, regulate the same aspect of performance. This position is supported by our statements in Notice 5 of Standard No. 222 (41 FR 4016) which expressed the opinion that seat spacing is the regulated aspect of performance (copy enclosed). Since your State standard is not identical to the Federal standard, it is the opinion of the NHTSA that it is preempted.; You should note that although you are not permitted to impose thi State standard on all vehicles used in your State, the Federal government does not preclude you from purchasing any buses for your own use from among the several designs now in production. You could, therefore, purchase only those vehicles that afford you the minimum knee space you desire. You should note further that purchase for your own use has been interpreted to mean purchased by a contractor under contract to provide transportation for school children.; Sincerely, Joan Claybrook

ID: nht80-3.27

DATE: 07/31/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Jaguar Rover Triumph Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

JUL 31 1980 NOA-30

Mr. Graham Gardner Manager, Engineering Liaison Jaguar Rover Triumph Inc. 500 Willow Tree Road Leonia, New Jersey 07605

Dear Mr. Gardner:

This responds to your letter of March 3, 1980, requesting an interpretation concerning the proper designated seating capacity for the rear seat in the Jaguar XJS coupe. You ask whether the design would be permitted to have only two "designated seating positions."

The definition of "designated seating position" specifies that any position likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion will be considered a designated seating position. Further, any bench seat having greater than 50 inches of hip room (measured in accordance with SAE Standard J1100(a)) 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 diagrams indicate that the rear seat in the Jaguar XJS has 44.25 inches of hip room. Since the stationary armrests appear to run the length of the seat, both technically and practically speaking the hip room measurement is substantially below the 50 inch caveat in the definition. This alone would probably qualify the seat as having only two designated seating positions. Moreover, the rear seat has stiff inboard seat belt receptacles on the raised contour at the center of the seat expanse which should serve as an impediment to use of that position. Given this obstruction, the seat configuration, and the limited amount of hip room, it is the agency's opinion that the rear seat of the Jaguar XJS coupe qualifies as having only two designated seating positions.

Please note 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,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

July 2, 1980

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

Dear Sir:

Jaguar Rover Triumph hereby requests a confirmation of its interpretation of the designated seating position definition contained in 49 CFR 571.3 to the effect that it would require two such seating positions in the rear seat of the Jaguar XJS coupe.

The rear seat width of this vehicle, a two-door coupe with a deeply contoured rear seat, is 44.25-inches, measured in accordance with SAE J1100(a). This 44.25-inch dimension includes the transmission tunnel, which protrudes into the seating area.

The enclosed engineering drawings and sales brochure clearly demonstrate Jaguar's intention that the rear seat be limited to two designated seating positions. The engineering drawings graphically illustrate the division of the rear seat into two seating areas by the high transmission tunnel trim panel. The 7th page of the brochure depicts this high contour, as well as the location of the inboard seat belt receptacles, which are adjacent to one another and permanently affixed to the center of the transmission tunnel. Not only would a passenger attempting to sit in the center of this seat be forced to sit upon this raised tunnel (with a corresponding reduction in available head room), but he would have to sit directly upon these stiff seat belt receptacles.

Although Jaguar Rover Triumph firmly believes there is no question about the number of required designated seating positions in the rear of the XJS coupe, it feels the regulation is sufficiently subjective to require the seeking of this interpretation.

Yours faithfully,

JAGUAR ROVER TRIUMPH INC,

Graham Gardner Manager, Engineering Liaison

GG/bb enclosures (2)

ID: 2253y

Ms. Linda B. Kent
Senior Account Executive
Market Development
Fasson Specialty Division
250 Chester Street
Painesville, OH 44077

Dear Ms. Kent:

Thank you for your letter requesting an interpretation of whether the use of a product on motor vehicles would violate Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR /571.205). This product, called "Contra Vision," is designed to display messages or advertising materials on windows and other clear surfaces, so that viewers on one side of the clear surface will see the message displayed, while viewers on the other side of the surface will see an essentially transparent surface without any message visible. According to your letter, this product "will be used for promotional signage in store windows, but also has application in rear taxicab windows, as well as rear and side windows of city buses." You asked for our opinion of whether this product complies with Standard No. 205.

Some background on how Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulation affect this product may be helpful. Our agency is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products or processes. Instead, the Safety Act specifies that each manufacturer itself must certify that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards, and also investigates alleged defects related to motor vehicle safety and alleged violations of other statutory provisions.

Your letter indicates that you are already aware that NHTSA has issued a safety standard that applies to the windows installed in motor vehicles. Specifically, Standard No. 205 requires that all new vehicles and all new glazing materials for use in motor vehicles must comply with certain performance requirements. Among the requirements set forth in Standard No. 205 are specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance. A minimum of 70 percent light transmittance is required in glazing areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars. In trucks and buses, the windshield and windows to the immediate right and left of the driver and the rearmost window, if the latter is used for driving visibility, are considered to be requisite for driving visibility, and therefore subject to the 70 percent minimum light transmittance requirement.

Your letter did not provide any information on the light transmittance that would be measured through glazing with Contra Vision installed on it. The combination of the glazing material and the Contra Vision must allow at least 70 percent light transmittance to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205. No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install Contra Vision on the glazing materials on new vehicles, unless the manufacturer or dealer certifies that the vehicle continues to comply with the 70 percent minimum light transmittance and other requirements of Standard No. 205.

After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to the vehicle are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with any safety standard. This provision of the law means that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business could install Contra Vision if the addition of Contra Vision to the glazing would result in a light transmittance of less than 70 percent, or otherwise cause the vehicle to no longer comply with the applicable requirements of Standard 205. Violations of this "render inoperative" prohibition can result in Federal civil penalties to the manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business of up to $1000 for each noncomplying installation.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act does not affect vehicle owners. Hence, vehicle owners themselves may install Contra Vision or any other product on the glazing of their vehicle, regardless of whether the installation causes the vehicle to no longer comply with Standard No. 205. Individual States have the authority to regulate the operational use of vehicles by their owners, and, therefore, have the authority to regulate or preclude individual owner modifications to the glazing of their vehicles.

I have enclosed an information sheet that summarizes the relationship between Federal auto safety laws and motor vehicle window tinting. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need any additional information about this topic, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:205#VSA d:l/9/90