ID: aiam3705

Dear Mr. Howard: We have received your petition for rulemaking of April 25, 1983, you letter of May 6 withdrawing it, and your letter of May 5 to Mr. Vinson of my staff asking for an interpretation. All this concerns the applicability of Standard No. 108 to your 'Vehicle Deceleration Warning System.'; As we understand it, this system was originally designed to provide flashing light through the back-up lamp system, in which yellow bulbs were used as substitutes for the white ones required by Standard No. 108. You were informally advised by agency staff that such a system would render the vehicle noncompliant with the requirement that a back-up lamp be white, and that it be steady burning in use.; You asked Mr. Vinson if there were another alternative for flashing re lights that would comply with Standard No. 108, and, in your letter of the 6th, whether use of the hazard warning system was acceptable. You also inquired about retrofitting vehicles manufactured before hazard warning signals were required, so that your system would work through the rear turn signals.; In the context of Federal regulations an optional system such as your is acceptable as original equipment, or equipment added before initial sale of the vehicle, if it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. In our view, it is permissible to use any rear lighting system Standard No. 108 allows to flash for signalling purposes. Thus, your system could operate through the rear hazard warning system, or the rear turn signal system (red or amber) as long as the color of light or photometrics required by the standard was not changed.; As an aftermarket device intended for installation on vehicles in use it must not render inoperative in whole or in part Federally- mandated lighting equipment. Subject to the restrictions noted above, your system would not violate this prohibition were it installed to work through the hazard warning or turn signal systems. However, since your system involves an aspect of performance not covered by Standard No. 108, each State may regulate its use as it sees fit.; Passenger cars built since January 1, 1969, have been required to hav hazard warning signal systems. Use of the turn signal system of a vehicle built before that date is not prohibited under Federal regulations but is also a matter to be determined by local law.; I hope that this is responsive to your questions. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0829

Dear Mr. Kennebeck: This is in reply to your letter of June 26, 1972, on the subject of th conformity of the Volkswagen shoulder belt/knee bar system to the requirements of Standard No. 208. I apologize for our delay.; Your first question is whether the system would meet the requirement for a fully passive system under S4.1.2.1 and S4.1.3 if it were adjusted automatically and met the frontal and lateral crash protection requirements of S5.1 and S5.2 and if the vehicle conformed to Standard 216. Our reply is that a passive seat belt system of the type you describe would appear to satisfy the requirements of S4.1.2.1 and S4.1.3. It would also, however, be required to meet the requirements of S4.5.3. We cannot determine from your description whether the system is capable of fitting the range of occupants specified in S7.1, as required by S4.5.3.3.; Your second question concerns that possibility that the system could b used, with the shoulder belt either active or passive, to meet the second or third option for passenger cars manufactured between August 15, 1973, and August 15, 1975. You point to two variances between the Volkswagen system and the system contemplated by these options. S4.1.2.2 requires the installation of a Type 1 seat belt, whereas the Volkswagen system contains only a shoulder belt and a knee bar. S4.1.2.3 specifies either a Type 1 or a Type 2 seat belt assembly, neither of which is found in the Volkswagen system. It is our opinion that these variances are such that an amendment of the standard would be required to permit the use of the Volkswagen system under either S4.1.2.2 or S4.1.2.3.; With reference to both the passive system discussed in your firs question and a petition for rulemaking in connection with your second, we are particularly concerned with the actual crash performance of a single diagonal belt restraint as opposed to the Type 1 or Type 2 belts permitted in Standard No. 208. The injury criteria presently included in Standard No. 208 may not differentiate between restraint systems with good crash force distribution, such as the air cushion, and those such as the single diagonal belt which could poorly distribute loads on real human occupants. Accordingly, we would appreciate your sending us accident data describing experience with the European-type single diagonal belt.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5366

"Dear Mr. Benford: This responds to your request for an interpretatio of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 211, Wheel nuts, wheel discs and hub caps. You wrote that your company manufactures aluminum wheel covers without 'protruding objects.' You requested confirmation that the wheel covers do not violate any FMVSS. Our response is provided below. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles, or of motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), it is the responsibility of the manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment to ensure that its equipment meet applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. Standard No. 211 regulates wheel nuts, wheel discs, and hub caps. Since 'wheel discs' encompasses wheel covers, your company's wheel covers are subject to Standard No. 211. S4. Requirements of Standard No. 211 states in part: As installed on any physically compatible combination of axle and wheel rim, wheel nuts, wheel discs, and hub caps for use on passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles shall not incorporate winged projections ... In your letter, you stated that your wheel covers do not have any 'protruding objects.' Since Standard No. 211 prohibits wheel discs (covers) with 'winged projections,' if your company's wheel covers do not incorporate 'winged projections,' the wheel covers would satisfy Standard No. 211. 'Winged projection' is defined at S3.2 of Standard No. 211 as an exposed cantilevered appendage that projects radially from a wheel disc and that typically has front, edge, and/or rear surfaces which are not in contact with the wheel when the wheel disc is installed on the axle. You also asked whether wheel covers made of aluminum violate any FMVSS. The answer is no, because Standard No. 211 does not specify materials for use in wheel covers. However, since wheel covers are 'motor vehicle equipment,' your company must ensure that the wheel covers are free of safety-related defects under the Safety Act. Sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concern the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that your company or NHTSA determines that the wheel covers have a safety-related defect, your company would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective wheel covers and remedying the problem free of charge. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam2193

Dear Mr. Moss: Thank you for your January 19, 1976, letter asking for furthe explanation of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) position on a school bus seating standard that specifies both passive compartmentalization and the installation of seat belt anchorages.; The NHTSA has issued its school bus seating standard (Standard No. 222 *School Bus Seating and Crash Protection*) in a form that requires compartmentalization of vehicle occupants but does not require installation of seat belt anchorages. There is not sufficient information in the record on which to determine what percentage of school districts would utilize seat belts. The limited evidence available to the NHTSA indicates that only a small fraction of school buses would have belts installed and properly used, and that the decision to mandate seat belt anchorage installation should await further information as to the extent to which belts would be installed and properly used.; The issue of whether the NHTSA is on 'safe legal ground in mandating requirement that in itself does not contribute to motor vehicle safety but requires further action on the part of local officials' has become less urgent in view of the standard's promulgation without anchorage requirements. I would like to respond generally that the NHTSA has always held the opinion in construing the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) that safety performance requirements that require further action by vehicle users are entirely appropriate. While some safety devices (such as bumpers) are in place and operate passively, most devices, (such as lights and seat belts) require occupant action to gain protection. Seat belt anchorages require more action than simple use to gain their benefits, but this does not appear to be a legally significant distinction. In this case, I decided that substantial controversy over the appropriateness and legality of this protection should not continue to create uncertainty over the ultimate form of the standard, endangering the ability of manufacturers to comply with Congress' maximum 9-month leadtime for upgrading school bus seating systems. We have, of course, left the issue of restraints in school buses.; While the decision on passive restraints could negate the value of sea belt training during the adult years, it should be noted the NHTSA is not proposing passive protection for the rear seats of passenger cars where children are encouraged to ride. They would need to use the seat belts provided to increase their protection in a crash.; Sincerely, James B. Gregory, Administrator

ID: aiam2605

Dear Mr.Barlow: This responds to your letter of May 5, 1977, requesting clarificatio of the relationship between paragraph S5.3 of Safety Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*, and Safety Standard No. 216, *Roof Crush Resistance*. It is your understanding that Standard No. 216 becomes 'obsolete and ineffective' after August 15, 1977.; Your interpretation is incorrect. Standard No. 216 is a separate independent standard from Standard No. 208 and remains effective in its present form regardless of the amendment of Standard No. 208 according to any of the three alternative proposals issued by Secretary Adams (42 FR 15935, March 24, 1977). Standard No. 216 is applicable to all passenger cars except those that conform to the rollover test requirements of paragraph S5.3 of Standard No. 208 by totally passive means.; Under existing Standard No. 208, a manufacturer must meet the rollove requirements of paragraph S5.3 only if he chooses to use option S4.1.2.1 (total passive protection). If the manufacturer chooses this option he can meet the requirements of Standard No. 216 instead of the rollover requirements of S5.3 until August 15, 1977, but not after that date since the alternative then expires. A manufacturer choosing to use either option S4.1.2.2 or option S4.1.2.3 of Standard No. 208 does not have to meet the rollover requirements of paragraph S5.3, at all. As a manufacturer of seat belts, you are undoubtedly aware that a majority of vehicle manufacturers choose to comply with Standard No. 208 by means of option S4.1.2.3.; If Secretary Adams' Alternative proposal I or Alternative proposal II becomes a final rule, Standard No. 208 will remain in the form just described above. The Secretary's Alternative II (mandatory passive restraints) proposes to make the lateral (S5.2) and rollover (S5.3) requirements of Standard No. 208 optional. A manufacturer would be permitted to use a totally passive system (meeting S54.1, S5.2, and S5.3) or to install lap belts and only meet the requirements of S5.1. If Alternative II were made final, most vehicle manufacturers would probably choose to install lap belts rather than to provide passive protection that would satisfy S5.3. As you noted, Alternative II also proposes to extend the option in paragraph S5.3 (complying with Standard No. 216 instead) from August 15, 1977, to August 31, 1980.; You are correct in your statement that the Secretary does not expect t reach a final decision on his alternative proposals until July.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4711

"Dear Mr. Kmiecik: This is in reply to your letter with respect t vehicle modification kits you wish to purchase, to be used in conversion of Datsun 240-280Z cars from closed to open vehicles. You have asked for the safety standards that apply to l974-78 convertibles, and whether the conversion kit meets these standards. I regret the delay in responding. We appreciate your efforts to meet the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. As you appear to realize, the Act requires, in essence, that vehicle alterations by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business must not render wholly or partially inoperative any device or element of design installed on that vehicle in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This means that a vehicle at the end of its conversion process must continue to meet the standards that applied at the time that it was first manufactured. This does not preclude conversions that render compliance with a standard physically impossible, obviously an open car cannot meet, for example, the standard for roof crush resistance (Standard No. 216), and convertibles, are, in fact, exempt from it. Such a conversion would allow substitution of a two-point (lap belt) restraint system in a convertible for a three-point (lap-shoulder belt) restraint system that may have been installed when it was a closed car (Standard No. 208). After the vehicle alterations are complete, the vehicle must conform to the barrier tests specified in several standards. We note that the items that comprise the kit are intended to add rigidity to the body and frame after removal of the top, but are unable to advise you of the effect these modifications would have upon the safety performance of the vehicle as converted. There are no Federal safety standards that apply to the individual items in your kit. The standards that apply to motor vehicles, including convertibles, manufactured from October 1, l973, through September 30, l978, will be found at Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 571. Specifically, the standards appear in volumes titled 49 CFR Parts 200 to 999, revised as of October 1, l973, l974, l975, l976, and l977. Originally, these volumes were available through the U.S. Government Printing Office (which may have an Omaha outlet). If they are no longer available through the GPO, we recommend that you consult a local law library. Thank you for your interest in motor vehicle safety. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam3703

Dear Mr. Howard: We have received your petition for rulemaking of April 25, 1983, you letter of May 6 withdrawing it, and your letter of May 5 to Mr. Vinson of my staff asking for an interpretation. All this concerns the applicability of Standard No. 108 to your 'Vehicle Deceleration Warning System.'; As we understand it, this system was originally designed to provide flashing light through the back-up lamp system, in which yellow bulbs were used as substitutes for the white ones required by Standard No. 108. You were informally advised by agency staff that such a system would render the vehicle noncompliant with the requirement that a back-up lamp be white, and that it be steady burning in use.; You asked Mr. Vinson if there were another alternative for flashing re lights that would comply with Standard No. 108, and in your letter of the 6th, whether use of the hazard warning system was acceptable. You also inquired about retrofitting vehicles manufactured before hazard warning signals were required, so that your system would work through the rear turn signals.; In the context of Federal regulations an optional system such as your is acceptable as original equipment, or equipment added before initial sale of the vehicle, if it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. In our view, it is permissible to use any rear lighting system Standard No. 108 allows to flash for signalling purposes. Thus, your system could operate through the rear hazard warning system, or the rear turn signal system (red or amber) as long as the color of light or photometrics required by the standard was not changed.; As an aftermarket device intended for installation on vehicles in use it must not render inoperative in whole or in part Federally- mandated lighting equipment. Subject to the restrictions noted above, your system would not violate this prohibition were it installed to work through the hazard warning or turn signal systems. However, since your system involves an aspect of performance not covered by Standard No. 108, each State may regulate its use as it sees fit.; Passenger cars built since January 1, 1969, have been required to hav hazard warning signal systems. Use of the turn signal system of a vehicle built before that date is not prohibited under Federal regulations but is also a matter to be determined by local law.; I hope that this is responsive to your questions. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2607

Dear Mr. Barlow: This responds to your letter of May 5, 1977, requesting clarificatio of the relationship between paragraph S5.3 of Safety Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*, and Safety Standard No. 216, *Roof Crush Resistance*. It is your understanding that Standard No. 216 becomes 'obsolete and ineffective' after August 15, 1977.; Your interpretation is incorrect. Standard No. 216 is a separate independent standard from Standard No. 208 and remains effective in its present form regardless of the amendment of Standard No. 208 according to any of the three alternative proposals issued by Secretary Adams (42 FR 15935, March 24, 1977). Standard No. 216 is applicable to all passenger cars except those that conform to the rollover test requirements of paragraph S5.3 of Standard No. 208 by totally passive means.; Under existing Standard No. 208, a manufacturer must meet the rollove requirements of paragraph S5.3 only if he chooses to use option S4.1.2.1 (total passive protection). If the manufacturer chooses this option he can meet the requirements of Standard No. 216 instead of the rollover requirements of S5.3 until August 15, 1977, but not after that date since the alternative then expires. A manufacturer choosing to use either option S4.1.2.2 or option S4.1.2.3 of Standard No. 208 does not have to meet the rollover requirements of paragraph S5.3, at all. As a manufacturer of seat belts, you are undoubtedly aware that a majority of vehicle manufacturers choose to comply with Standard No. 208 by means of option S4.1.2.3.; If Secretary Adams' Alternative proposal I or Alternative proposal II becomes a final rule, Standard No. 208 will remain in the form just described above. The Secretary's Alternative II (mandatory passive restraints) proposes to make the lateral (S5.2) and rollover (S5.3) requirements of Standard No. 208 optional. A manufacturer would be permitted to use a totally passive system (meeting S5.1, S5.2 and S5.3) or to install lap belts and only meet the requirements of S5.1. If Alternative II were made final, most vehicle manufacturers would probably choose to install lap belts rather than to provide passive protection that would satisfy S5.3. As you noted, Alternative II also proposes to extend the option in paragraph S5.3 (Complying with Standard No. 216 instead) from August 15, 1977, to August 31, 1980.; You are correct in your statement that the Secretary does not expect t reach a final decision on his alternative proposals until July.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: 77-3.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/01/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Texas Automobile Dealers Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your August 4, 1977, letter asking whether a dealer who assembles a "kit-car" on a chassis would be considered a manufacturer of a motor vehicle for purposes of compliance with Federal safety standards.

Manufacturer is defined in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act) (15 U.S.C. 1381) as "any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. . . ." Therefore, a dealer who assembles "kit-cars" would be considered a manufacturer for purposes of the Act since he is assembling motor vehicles. However, if the chassis on which the kit-car is assembled is from another used vehicle, the completed kit-car vehicle would be considered used and its assembler would not be considered a manufacturer under the Act.

The Act prohibits the manufacture for sale or introduction into interstate commerce of any new motor vehicle that does not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Therefore, if the vehicle the dealer assembles is going to be used as a means of transportation on the road, it must be certified as conforming with all applicable safety standards. The mere use of a vehicle on public highways constitutes an introduction into interstate commerce and is prohibited unless compliance with the safety standards has been achieved.

Part 567.4(g)(1)(ii) of the certification regulations provides the producer of the kit with an option as to whether or not he certifies that the vehicle will comply with all applicable safety standards if completed according to his instructions. If the producer of the kit takes the responsibility of certifying the completed vehicle, the assembler of the vehicle must exercise reasonable care in following the instructions he provides.

For your information I have enclosed a sheet entitled "Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations" which will direct you to the proper source for obtaining a copy of the safety standards and regulations.

SINCERELY

texas automobile dealers association

August 4, 1977

U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

This is an inquiry as to your construction of the term "manufacturer" as defined and used in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended.

One of our members has inquired as to the applicability of the Act to the assembly and sale of so-called "kit cars". As we understand it, kits are manufactured and sold by the manufacturer to the dealers. The kit is composed of body members made primarily of fiberglass and designed as replicas of classic cars from the past. The kit is designed to be mounted on a Volkswagen chassis, without modification to the chassis.

These kits may be sold to the customer who assembles the vehicle himself on his own chassis or the dealer might assemble the vehicle on his chassis and sell both kit and chassis, fully assembled, to the customer. Our question is, if the dealer assembles the kit on his own chassis and sells the assembled vehicle to the customer, is he a "manufacturer" within the meaning of the Act and therefore subject to compliance with its provisions and of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations?

We would appreciate your assistance in providing the answer to this question.

David R. Sapp Assistant General Counsel

ID: 11695JEG

Mr. William G. Larrabee
141 Cotton Brook Road
Dover-Foxcroft, Maine 04426

Dear Mr. Larrabee:

This responds to your letter asking in what year it was mandated that the U.S. auto industry begin to install safety belts in new cars. I am pleased to provide this information to you.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA, then called the National Traffic Safety Agency) required all new passenger cars to have safety belts beginning on January 1, 1968. This requirement was included in one of the agency's initial Federal motor vehicle safety standards, which was based on the laws of 32 states. NHTSA required other types of new motor vehicles, such as sport utility vehicles, vans, and trucks, to have safety belts beginning on July 1, 1971.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:208 d:4/26/96