ID: nht90-1.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/09/90

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: LINDA B. KENT -- SENIOR MARKET DEVELOPMENT FASSON SPECIALTY DIVISION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 07/06/89 FROM LINDA B. KENT -- FASSON SPECIALTY DIVISION TO STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA; OCC 3724

TEXT: 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 adver tising 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 n ew 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 th at 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 moto r 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 t he 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 transmit tance 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 th e 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 Cont ra 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 i n 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 longe r 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 vehicles window tinting. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need any additional information about thi s topic, please fee free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: 11391MLV

Ms. Gwen Fichtner
Compliance Engineer
Western Star Trucks, Inc.
2076 Enterprise Way
Kelowna, British Columbia
Canada V1Y6H8

Dear Ms. Fichtner:

This responds to your fax of November 21, 1995, in which you asked how many seat belts would be required on a box base seat. You stated that the seat had the following dimensions:

Box width - 29.71 inches Width of flat area between foam bolsters on seat back - 24 inches Overall width at the widest part of the foam - 31 inches

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, specifies occupant protection requirements (seat belts or air bags) based on vehicle type and seating position within the vehicle. The requirements apply to "designated seating positions," defined at 49 CFR 571.3 as:

any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a fifth percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and 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. Any bench or split-bench seat ... having greater than 50 inches of hip room ... shall have not less than three designated seating positions... In a May 22, 1978, notification to vehicle manufacturers, the agency stated that manufacturers are responsible for determining the number of seating positions that are in the vehicle. The agency also stated:

This does not mean, however, that the manufacturer's designation will be accepted by the agency if there are additional, obvious seating positions that are likely to be used by occupants while the vehicle is in motion. The agency unquestionably intends to require protection for all vehicle occupants.

Thus, while it is your responsibility to determine the number of seat belts required, we can provide some guidance to help you determine whether more than one belt would be required on this seat.

The agency has previously stated that the definition of "designated seating position" should not be read to mean that vehicles with less than 50 inches of hip room are never required to have three seat belts, but rather that this amount is "conclusive evidence that there should be at least three designated seating positions." On seats with slightly less than 50 inches, the agency said "the seat design should be such that it is obviously to be used by only two persons if the manufacturer only designates two positions." Your seat has significantly less than 50 inches of hip room, and therefore, you would not have to designate three positions.

The definition of designated seating position does not include an amount that is conclusive evidence that there should be at least two designated seating positions. The information you provided indicates that the seat would have 31 inches of hip room. The sitting hip breadth of a 5th percentile adult female is 12.8 inches. Because your seat has more than 25.6 inches of hip room, it could be possible for more than one 5th percentile adult female to use the seat. However, we also note that the amount that is conclusive evidence of three positions is greater than 38.4 inches (the amount of hip room of three 5th percentile females). Therefore, we believe that this situation is analogous to the situation of a seat with slightly less than 50 inches of hip room, and would look to see whether the seat design is such that it is obvious that the seat is only for one person.

The seat appears in the drawings to be generally flat, similar to a bench seat that would be used for more than one occupant. Therefore, if you wish to designate only one seating position, you should modify the seat design to make it clear that the seat is intended for one occupant. For example, you could sculpt the foam similar to bucket seats or captain's chairs.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have other questions or need some additional information, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:571 d:3/4/96

On January 16, 1996, you faxed additional drawings to our office. Those drawings indicate that, except for some narrowing at the upper corners of the seat back, the seat bottom and seat back are 31 inches wide. 43 FR 21893. 44 FR 23229, 23232. 44 FR 23229, 23232.

ID: 11378JEG

Roger C. Fairchild, Esq.
Shutler & Low
14500 Avion Parkway
Suite 300
Chantilly, VA 22021-1101

Dear Mr. Fairchild:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of the "one-truck credit" provisions of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208. I apologize for the delay in our response. You requested our concurrence that a multipurpose passenger vehicle equipped with an air bag and automatic seat belt at the driver's seating position, and a Type 2 manual belt at the right front passenger seating position, would count as a complying vehicle under the automatic restraint phase-in (through model year 1998), and asked how such a vehicle should be tested to comply with Standard No. 208.

The answer to your question differs depending on the model year. This difference relates to the fact that NHTSA is phasing in two separate requirements during this time period: (1) the requirement for light trucks to be equipped with automatic restraints (the phase-in for this requirement takes place during model years 1995-1997) and (2) the ISTEA requirement for light trucks to be equipped with air bags and manual lap/shoulder belts (the phase-in for this requirement takes place during model year 1998).

As discussed below, for purposes of the light truck automatic restraint phase-in, a vehicle with an air bag and automatic belt at the driver position would count as a complying vehicle under the "one-truck credit" provisions, provided that it met Standard No. 208's dynamic crash test requirements with the automatic seat belt detached. However, such a vehicle would not count toward the ISTEA requirement that 80 percent of a manufacturer's model year 1998 light trucks be equipped with an air bag and manual lap/shoulder belt. Thus, a manufacturer could produce such vehicles during model year 1998 only to the extent that such vehicles comprised 20 percent or less of the manufacturer's light truck fleet.

Under the "one-truck credit" provisions, a vehicle equipped with an air bag for the driver position and a manual safety belt for the right front passenger position is generally counted as a vehicle complying with the automatic crash protection requirements (for both the driver and passenger). The option was limited in duration so as not to delay the introduction of automatic crash protection for the right front passenger. See 56 FR 12480-81, March 26, 1991.

The specific language implementing the "one-truck credit" provisions, for the light truck automatic restraint phase-in, states that each vehicle "whose driver's seating position complies with the requirements of S4.1.2.1(a) by means not including any type of seat belt and whose right front passenger's seating position is equipped with a manual Type 2 seat belt that complies with S5.1 of this standard" is counted as a vehicle complying with the automatic crash protection requirements. (S4.2.5.4(c) and S4.2.5.5(a)(2); emphasis added.)

In order for a vehicle with a driver side air bag and automatic seat belt to qualify under this provision, it would be necessary for the vehicle to comply with the requirements of S4.1.2.1(a) with the automatic belt detached. This follows from the language specifying that the requirements of S4.1.2.1(a) must be met "by means not including any type of seat belt." Of course, the vehicle would also need to comply with Standard No. 208's crash test requirements with the dummy belted. See S4.1.2.1(c)(2) and S4.5.3.

A vehicle with an air bag and automatic belt at the driver position would not count toward the ISTEA requirement that 80 percent of a manufacturer's model year 1998 light trucks be equipped with an air bag and manual lap/shoulder belt. As you correctly note, S4.5.3 of Standard No. 208 generally permits automatic belts to be used in place of any seat belt assembly otherwise required under section 4 of the standard. However, S4.5.3.1 provides that an automatic belt may not be used pursuant to S4.5.3 to meet the requirements for "a Type 2 seat belt assembly at any seating position equipped with an inflatable restraint system pursuant to," among other references, S4.2.6.1. (Emphasis added.) S4.2.6.1 is the section which implements ISTEA's requirement that at least 80 percent of a manufacturer's model year 1998 light trucks be equipped with an air bag and manual lap/shoulder belt. While vehicles coming within the "one-truck credit" provisions generally could be used to meet the 80 percent requirement, S4.5.3.1 would preclude such vehicles from having an automatic belt at the driver position (the seating position that would be "equipped with an inflatable restraint pursuant to . . . S4.2.6.1").

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref: 208 d:4/24/96

Like your letter, our letter uses the term "model year" for purposes of simplicity. Standard No. 208's phase-in requirements are expressed in terms of production periods, which do not always correspond to model years.

ID: 1983-2.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/14/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mack Trucks, Inc. -- S. Robson, Sr. Project Engineer - Vehicle Regulations

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. S. Robson Sr. Project Engineer - Vehicle Regulations Mack Trucks, Inc. P.O. Box 1761 Allentown, Pennsylvania 18105

Dear Mr. Robson:

This responds to your recent letter requesting an interpretation concerning the test procedures of Safety Standard No. 207. You ask whether a seat in a heavy duty truck must remain in its adjusted position when tested with a load of 20 times the weight of the entire seat, if the seat has been tested and remains in its adjusted position when subjected to a load of 20 times the weight of the adjustable upper section of the seat.

This question arises because of the configuration of some heavy-duty truck seats which include suspension fixtures (pedestal structures) on which the upper seat section rests. Safety Standard No. 207 requires seats to withstand a load equal to 20 times their weight and requires the seats to remain in their adjusted position during the required loading (paragraph S4.2). The upper seat sections and adjusters of your truck seats are tested on rigid test beds by the seat manufacturer and reportedly comply with the adjuster provision of S4.2. However, when you test these seats in the actual vehicle (applying 20 times the weight of the entire seat, including pedestal), the center of gravity falls on the seat adjuster and the seat does not always stay in its adjusted position during loading.

In answer to your specific question, the seat must remain in its adjusted position when tested to 20 times the weight of the entire seat, as required by paragraph S4.2 of the standard. We would agree with you, however, that with a seat configuration such as you describe, the adjusters and upper seat section would never experience a loading of 20 times the weight of the entire seat in an actual crash. Your problem appears to arise because the center of gravity of this seat happens to fall on the seat adjusters and the standard requires the loading to be applied through the center of gravity. The purpose of this loading requirement, however, is to ensure the integrity of the entire seat as it is attached to the vehicle structure.

Therefore, it is our opinion that for a pedestal seat such as you describe, a manufacturer could establish due care through a combined test procedure which would load the seat adjusters and upper seat section to only 20 times the weight of those components to determine if the seat would remain in its adjusted position, and which would load the seat as anchored to the vehicle structure to 20 times the weight of the entire seat, including the pedestal.

Please contact Hugh Oates of my staff if you have any further questions (202-426-2992).

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

April 29, 1983

Office of General Council, NHTSA

Gentlemen:

Subject: Clarification of Seat Testing Procedure FMVSS 207

Mack Trucks, Inc., a major manufacturer of heavy duty trucks is requesting an interpretation and clarification of the seat test procedure appearing in Sections 4 and 5 of 49 CFR Part 571.207 -Standard No. 207; Seating Systems.

The typical structure of the vast majority of seats used in heavy duty trucks is considerably different than those used in passenger cars. Note the comparisons on the attached sheet. In a passenger car, the fore/aft (longitudinal) adjuster is typically at the bottom of the seat between the seat and the floor of the vehicle body (see Figure 1). In a heavy duty truck, the adjuster is typically above the suspension mechanism of the seat and below the upper seat section (see Figure 2). In an actual 20g acceleration, the adjuster on the typical passenger car seat would experience the force of the mass of the entire seat being accelerated (or decelerated). However, on a typical heavy duty truck seat the adjuster would experience the force of only the upper seat section (perhaps about 40% of the total seat weight) being accelerated (or decelerated) at 20g.

Mack Trucks, Inc. is not a manufacturer of the seats used on our vehicles; they are manufactured by outside vendors. These outside vendors test and certify the seats supplied to Mack Trucks, Inc. for compliance with FMVSS's 207, 210 and 302.

However, these certifications are made with the seats mounted to rigid test beds, not in an actual cab. Mack Trucks, Inc., in exercising due care in its installation of seats, performs its own compliance testing of each new seat or seat belt mounting in an actual truck cab. Because of the basic difference in seat structure between a passenger car seat and a truck seat, it is necessary that a fixture be welded to the seat as close as possible to the actual vertical c.g. (center of gravity) of the entire seat. This fixture is used to attach the hydraulic mechanism necessary to apply the 20g load to the seat. In many instances, the vertical c.g. of the seat is approximately at the same height as the seat adjusters. When attaching this fixture to the seat, it quite often becomes necessary to attach it to brackets that are part of the upper seat section. In doing so, the 20g load for the entire seat is being transmitted through the fore/aft adjusters. As mentioned earlier, the fore/aft adjusters would not "see" this much load in an actual 20g acceleration (or deceleration). It would "see" only 20 times the weight of the upper seat section. Therefore, in testing the seat with the fixture attached to the upper seat section, the adjusters would be greatly overloaded from their design load and may not remain in their adjusted position.

The question that Mack Trucks/ Inc. poses to the NHTSA is this: Would it be considered as not meeting the test requirements of FMVSS 207 if a seat, when tested with a load of 20 times the weight of the entire seat being applied through the adjusters for the upper seat section, does not remain in its fore/aft adjusted position, even if the adjusters have been tested and certified from the vendor for compliance when subjected to the load of 20 times just the weight of the adjustable upper section of the seat?

As you can appreciate, the answer to this question will affect our current test procedures and therefore, we request a timely response. If additional information is required or you wish to discuss the problem further, please contact this office.

Very truly yours,

MACK TRUCKS, INC.

S. Robson Sr. Project Engineer - Vehicle Regulations

SR:bh

Attachment Omitted.

ID: nht80-4.7

DATE: 10/03/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: William Blythe

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

October 3, 1980 NOA-30

Mr. William Blythe 1545 University Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301

Dear Mr. Blythe:

This responds to your recent letter asking questions concerning the test procedures of Safety Standard No. 216 Roof Crush Resistance (49 CFR 571.216). Specifically, you are concerned with the proper applications of the test block forces specified in paragraphs S6.3 and S6.2(d) of the standard.

Your first question asks whether paragraph S6.3 allows the force on the test block to be applied "essentially opposite the initial contact point of the roof to the block." Paragraph S6.3 specifies that the force required by the standard shall be applied in a downward direction to the lower surface of the test device. Figure 1 of the standard illustrates this procedure and indicates that the force is to be centrally applied to the loading block. This procedure will be followed during tests by the agency to determine the compliance of particular passenger cars with Safety Standard No. 216. Therefore, we would not recommend that you apply the force opposite the initial contact point of the test block with the roof.

Paragraph S6.2(d) of the standard specifies that the initial contact point (with the roof) is on the longitudinal centerline on the lower surface of the test device and 10 inches from the forwardmost point of the centerline. Your second question asks whether this 10-inch dimension should be maintained if this places the leading edge of the test device behind the leading edge of the roof and the A-pillars. You state that this would occur with certain roof configurations which tend to be high in the center (i.e., in which the leading edge of the roof is not the highest point of the roof). A manufacturer should adhere to the 10-inch dimension even if this means the leading edge of the test device will not be forward of the A-pillar and the roof's forward edge. The test procedures specified are standardized procedures which the agency applies to all passenger cars regardless of roof configuration. Thus, the agency would maintain the 10-inch dimension even when testing a roof with a higher center than its leading edge.

I would like to point out, however, that the test procedures specified in the safety standards only document how the agency will conduct its compliance tests. Manufacturers are not required to test vehicles according to the procedures specified. A manufacturer's responsibility is to exercise due care to ascertain that its vehicles are in fact in compliance with the standards (15 U.S.C. 1397). If you are convinced that the procedures mentioned in your letter would accurately test the compliance of a particular vehicle with Safety Standard No. 216, you are certainly permitted to use those procedures. It is up to the manufacturer, however, to determine whether it has in fact exercised due care to determine compliance.

I hope this has been responsive to your inquiry.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

August 24, 1980

Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Streee, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Attention: Mr. Huyh Oates, Esq.

Reference: Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 216, "Roof Crush Resistance--Passenger Cars"

Gentlemen:

This letter is pursuant to my telephone conversation with Mr. Hugh Oates, on August 7, 1980. I am writing at the suggestion of Mr. Ed Jettner, NHTSA Project Engineer for MVSS 216, in an attempt to clarify certain aspects of that Standard. My organization is preparing to conduct tests in accordance with MVSS 216, and we perceive certain apparent ambiguities in the Test Procedure (paragraph S.6 of MVSS 216), for which we need clarification. Essentially, we have two questions to which we seek answers.

1. What should be the location of the applied force with respect to the upper surface of the test block?

Paragraph S6.3 reads: "Apply force in a downward direction to the lower (sic) surface of the test device...," but does not specify the location of the force on the surface of the block. Figure 1 seems to imply that the applied force should be centered in the upper surface of the block, but the location of the force is not dimensioned. Clearly, if the applied force could be located directly opposite the point of initial contact of the test block with the roof, the load transmitted to the roof would be unchanged, and at the same time the loading frame needed to maintain the block at its specified angles would be much simpler to construct. Thus the question is, can the applied force on the block be located essentially opposite the initial contact point of the roof to the block? This location is much preferred over the control location implied in Figure 1 of the specification because the test frame is thereby greatly simplified and no change results in the loads transmitted to the roof.

2. Should the ten-inch dimension from the leading edge of the loading block to the initial contact point be maintained even if this locates the leading edge of the block aft of the A-pillar (or leading edge of the roof)?

Paragraph S6.2(d) specifies that the "initial contact point ... is ... 10 inches from the forwardmost point..." of the loading block. Also, Figure 1 implies that the forward edge of the block is forward of the leading edge of the roof. For some roof configurations (which tend to be high in the center), holding the ten-inch requirement will move the leading edge of the block to a position aft of the leading edge of the roof. In such a situation, should the ten-inch dimension be maintained, or should the leading edge of the loading block remain forward of the A-pillar, thus increasing the ten-inch dimension? In order to simulate, even approximately, the actual loading which might be encountered in a roll-over, it would seem desirable to keep the leading edge of the loading block forward of the A-pillar so that the A-pillars are loaded directly.

Because of our test program schedule, we would appreciate your response at the earliest possible time.

Very truly yours,

William Blythe, Ph.D.

WB:gh

ID: nht93-2.42

DATE: March 31, 1993

FROM: Michael Love -- Manager, Compliance, Porsche Cars North America, Inc.

TO: Mary Versailles -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Request for Interpretation

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-8-93 from John Womack to Michael Love (A41; Std. 208; Std. 209; Std. 210; Part 571)

TEXT:

Under provisions of 49 CFR 571.208 S 4.1.4.2, integral Type seat belts are required at rear outboard seating positions of passenger cars. "Designated seating position" is defined in 571.3(b) as a location capable of accommodating a 5th percentile adult female. In certain instances, rear seats can at certain times meet the definition of designated seating position and other times not. For example, a seat with a folding seat back may be a seating position with the seat back in the up position and not with the seat back folded forward over the seat base. Another example of this could be if a platform or other device has several positions, one of which covers the seat so as to remove the necessary room to meet the designated seated position criteria.

Porsche's interpretation of such situations where a seat sometimes meets the designated seating position criteria is as follows:

- When the seat meets the criteria, then seat belts must be provided according to the requirements of 571.208. In addition, those belts, since required by 571.208, must also meet the requirements of 571.209 and 571.210.

- When the seat does not meet the criteria, then seat belts are no longer required by 571.208. Any seat belts provided in this situation must no longer meet requirements of 571.208, 209 or 210.

Porsche requests NHTSA's concurrence with this interpretation. If you should have any questions, please contact me at 702/3483198.

ID: 1984-2.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/09/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Porsche

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG Abt. ESV z. Hd. Hern Mayer Postfach 11 40 7251 Weissach WEST GERMANY

Dear Mr. Mayer:

This responds to your letter about Safety Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays, and Safety Standard No. 101, Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect. Your letter asked two questions concerning whether a proposed design for a passenger car automatic transmission shift lever would meet the requirements of those standards. Your questions are answered below. This letter also discusses additional issues raised by your proposed design that were not directly raised by your letter. Finally, since the drawing accompanying your letter may be a future design plan, I have enclosed a copy of 49 CFR 512, which explains how you may apply for confidential treatment of design information.

By way of background information, I would note that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not grant approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to assure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

According to your letter and accompanying drawing, the design you are considering may be generally described as follows. The shift lever would be mounted on the floor console and would not be identified. A display for the transmission sequence would be provided on the instrument panel. All eligible positions would be permanently in view of the driver, and the selected position would be identified through more intense illumination.

Your first question is whether it is permissible under these standards for a manufacturer not to provide identification for the shift lever. The answer to that question is yes. Neither Standard No. 101 nor Standard No. 102 includes any requirement concerning identification of an automatic transmission shift lever. Moreover, no other Federal motor vehicle safety standard includes such a requirement.

The identification and other requirements of Standard No. 101 only apply to the controls and displays listed in the standard. Since automatic transmission shift levels are not among the controls listed in the standard, the standard's requirements are not applicable. Standard No. 102 requires that identification of shift lever positions of automatic transmissions... shall be permanently displayed in view of the driver." Section S3.2. NHTSA has interpreted this section to require the display of a gear lever sequence and a gear position indicator. The section does not, however, require the shift lever control itself to be identified. Your second question is whether Standard No. 101 or Standard No. 102 requires the shift lever to be within a certain reaching distance to be operable by the driver while driving the vehicle. The answer to that question is no.

As your letter pointed out, Standard No. 101 does require certain controls to be operable by the driver when the driver is restrained by the crash protection equipment installed in accordance with the requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. As explained in the answer to your first question, however, the requirements of Standard No. 101 are not applicable to automatic transmission shift levers. I would note that the term "manual transmission shift lever," listed in section S5.1 of the standard, does not incorporate automatic transmission shift levers. Similarly, Standard No. 102 does not include any requirements concerning the location of the shift lever.

I would like to point out two additional issues raised by your proposed design. The first concerns the requirement in Standard No. 102 that "(i)dentification of shift lever positions of automatic transmissions... shall be permanently displayed in view of the driver." Section S3.2. NHTSA interprets "position" to mean the position of the gears in relation to each other and the position that the driver has selected. Thus, as noted above, the agency has interpreted this section to require the display of a gear lever sequence and a gear position indicator.

Moreover, the agency has interpreted this section's use of the words "permanently displayed" to require a display which can be seen regardless of the operating mode of the engine. Thus, a display that would not be seen when the ignition is in the "off" position does not comply with these requirements. (A letter which discusses this interpretation is enclosed. The letter is addressed to Ford.)

Taking these interpretations together, Standard No. 102 requires the display of a gear lever sequence and a gear position indicator, both of which must be capable of being seen regardless of whether the ignition is on or off. It is not clear whether your proposed design meets these requirements. Your letter states that all eligible positions are permanently in view of the driver and the selected position is identified through more intense illumination. First, with regard to the gear lever sequence, it is not clear whether your letter's use of the word "permanently" covers periods of time when the ignition is not on.

Second, with regard to the gear position indicator, it is not clear whether the selected position is identified by more intense illumination during periods of time when the ignition is not on.

The second issue I would like to note concerns the light intensity requirements of Standard No. 101. Automatic gear position displays are covered by that standard and must meet its requirements for, among other things, light intensity. An automatic gear display is a gauge. See section S4. Section S5.3.3 requires that light intensities for gauges and their identification be continuously variable from (a) a position at which either there is no light emitted or the light is barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions to (b) a position providing illumination sufficient for the driver to identify the control or display readily under conditions of reduced visibility. However, if the gauge is an informational readout display, section S5.3.3 only requires that it have at least two values, a higher one for day, and a lower one for nighttime conditions.

Finally, I would note that incoming letters and attachments are routinely made public along with letters of interpretation. Since the drawing accompanying your letter may be a future design plan, I have enclosed a copy of 49 CFR 512, Confidential Business Information, which sets forth the agency's procedures concerning confidentiality. Please contact me if you wish to apply for confidential treatment for that drawing.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures

Miss Diane K. Steed Deputy Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 USA ESVG/My/u (453)

October 6, 1983 Subject: FMVSS 101 and 102; Interpretation

Dear Miss Steed,

In connection with FMVSS's Nos. 101 and 102 we kindly ask you for interpretation resp. clarification in view of the location and identification of the display of the automatic gear position and the shift lever itself.

Your early favourable consideration of our request would be greatly appreciated.

Yours truly,

Dr.Ing.h.c. F. Porsche Aktiengesellschaft - Technical Administration-Mayer Enclosure

Request of Interpretation of Location and Identification

Requirements for the Automatic Gear Position Display and the Shift Lever of Automatic Transmissions

In S 5.1 of FMVSS 101 it is claimed that the displays shall be visible to the driver.

In S 5.2 of FMVSS 101 it is claimed that the identification shall be placed on or adjacent to the display that it identifies.

Column 3 of Table 2 of FMVSS 101 refers to FMVSS 102 with regard to the question of the identifying words or abbreviation and no symbol is included in column 4 of the said table (automatic gear position).

In FMVSS 102 under S 3.2 the identification of shift lever positions of automatic transmissions is requested in connection with the instruction: "....shall be permanently displayed in view of the driver".

Our Questions are the following:

1) Is an advice of transmission shift lever sequence of an automatic transmission in a passenger car sufficient; as shown in annex 1 (*)? In this case all eligible positions are permanently in view of the driver and the selected position is identified through more intense illumination.

Is it admissible in this case that the shift lever which is mounted on the floor console has no identification?

(*) For presentation we had to use the instrument desired for the German market. Please neglect this fact as the third dial-plate to the left shows the US-speedometer version and includes the requested transmission sequence.

2) The shift lever for the automatic transmission is of course located within reach of the driver who is protected under FMVSS 208. What we would like to know is if Standard 101 or Standard 102 require that the shift lever has to be within a specific reaching distance to be operable by the driver while driving the vehicle, since FMVSS S.5.1 under article (j) refers only to manual transmission shift lever.

We would be very grateful to hear from you as soon as possible since we have stopped designing on this subject until we receive an answer from you.

Sincerely yours, Dr.Ing.h.c.F.Porsche AG -Technical Administration- Mayer

Dr.Ing.h.c.F.Porsche AG Abt. ESV z. Hd. Herrn Mayer Postfach 11 40 7251 Weissach WEST-GERMAMY

ID: nht79-4.6

DATE: 09/18/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Ralph Hitchcock; NHTSA

TO: Safety Engineering Associates Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), which has been forwarded to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for reply, regarding lap belts and/or shoulder belts for fire trucks.

The enclosed Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) are relevant to the installation of safety belts in fire trucks. FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, FMVSS No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and FMVSS No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages.

Federal motor vehicle safety standards are applicable to new vehicles and require trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle rating of more than 10,000 pounds to have either a lap belt or a lap and shoulder belt combination seat belt assembly at each designated seating position.

The term "designated seating position" is defined as "Designated seating position means any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th 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. Any bench or split-bench seat in a passenger car, truck or multipurpose passenger vehicle with a GVWR less than 10,000 pounds, 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." If the Tillerman's seat is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion it would be a designated seating position and would have to be equipped with a lap belt or a lap and shoulder belt.

If a particular fire truck were not required to be equipped with seat belts when originally manufactured, it would not subsequently have to be equipped with belts, slace our regulations only apply to new vehicles. For example, a fire truck manufactured before the applicable sections of FMVSS No. 208 became effective did not have to be equipped with belts. Further, no OSHA regulations would require retrofitting of belts in vehicles not originally required to have them.

If we can be of further service in this matter, please feel free to contact us.

ID: nht75-2.28

DATE: 07/18/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. C. Schultz; NHTSA

TO: Volvo of America Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 19, 1975, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems, with regard to an accelerator control system which contains either elements in parallel or a complete parallel system.

The requirements of S5.2 of Standard No. 124 are met if, after a severance or disconnection of any component of the accelerator control system, the throttle returns to the idle position within the time specified in S5.3, measured from the first removal of the opposing actuating force by the driver, or from the disconnection or severance. You are correct in your interpretation that Standard No. 124 is intended to protect against a single severance, and that there are no requirements in Standard No. 124 concerning the severance or disconnection of the remaining one(s) of two or more parallel elements in an accelerator control system.

SINCERELY,

June 19, 1975

James Schultz, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Request for Interpretation of FMVSS No. 124

Section S5.2 of FMVSS No. 124 - Accelerator Control Systems specifies requirements for return of the throttle to the idle position ". . . whenever any one component of the accelerator control system is disconnected or severed at a single point." The operation of this section of the standard is clear when the accelerator control system consists of a single series of links and/or cables and/or other connecting devices. Severance or disconnection at any one point will result in a loss of control by the operator and the return of the throttle to its idle position.

The situation is not as clear when the accelerator control system contains either elements in parallel or a complete parallel system. In this case if one of two or more parallel links, cables or other connecting devices is severed or disconnected, the operator still maintains control of the accelerator control system. Since the throttle does not return to the idle position at the time of severance or disconnection, the requirements of S5.2 will be met if the system returns to idle within the time limit specified by S5.3, measured from the first removal of the opposing actuating force by the driver.

With regard to the above situation it is our understanding there are no requirements in FMVSS No. 124 concerning the severance or disconnection of the remaining of two or more parallel elements in an accelerator control system since S5.2 refers to the severance or disconnection of only one component.

Thus the requirements of S5.2 would be met if such a system returns to the idle position within the specified time after the removal of the opposing actuating force.

Your verification of our understanding of the standard's applicability to parallel links or systems would be appreciated. Thank you for your prompt consideration of this request.

VOLVO OF AMERICA CORPORATION Product Engineering and Development

Donald J. Gobeille, Jr. Product Safety Engineer

CC: E. SKARIN/AB VOLVO

ID: 7405

Mr. Michael F. Hecker
Micho Industries
P.O. Box 1791
Goleta, CA 93116

Dear Mr. Hecker:

This responds to your letter of June 8, 1992 concerning how the "R-Bar" should be positioned during testing under Standard No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection. The R-BAR is a padded restraining device, and the ends of the device attach to the rear of a school bus seatback. The device folds down for the purpose of restraining the passengers seated in the next rearward seat. Your letter states that, under the test condition set forth in S6.4 of the standard, you believe that the test should be performed with the R-Bar in its most upright position. As discussed below, your understanding is incorrect.

Section S6 of Standard No. 222 sets forth a number of test conditions which apply to the requirements specified in section S5 of the standard. One of these requirements, set forth in section S6.4, reads as follows: "If adjustable, a seat back is adjusted to its most upright position." This test condition addresses seat backs which may be adjusted to different angles for the comfort of the seat occupant. Your letter raises the issue of whether this condition also addresses the position of a restraining bar which is attached to the seat back.

It is our opinion that S6.4 only addresses the position (degree of uprightness) of a seat back as a whole, and not the position of individual components that can separately be placed in different positions without affecting the degree of uprightness of the seat back. In the case of the R-Bar, the position of the R-Bar (up or down) has no effect on the degree of uprightness of the seat back. Therefore, Standard No. 222 does not expressly address the position of a device such as the R-Bar.

As a general matter, when a standard does not specify a particular test condition, there is a presumption that the requirements of the standard must be met at all such test conditions. This presumption that the standard must be met at all positions of unspecified test conditions may be rebutted if the language of the standard as a whole or its purposes indicate an intention to limit unspecified test conditions to a particular condition or conditions.

In the case of Standard No. 222, nothing in the language of the standard suggests that the test procedures is only to be performed with a device such as the R-Bar in only one particular position. Indeed, the purpose of the standard is to reduce the possibility of death or injury to school bus occupants during crashes and sudden driving maneuvers. To serve this purpose, the vehicle must be capable of meeting the requirements of Standard No. 222 with the R-Bar in any position in which it may be placed, since the R-Bar could be at any such position when the seat is occupied.

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,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:222 d:7/14/92