ID: 86-2.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/18/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: David E. Martin -- Director, Automotive Safety Engineering, GM

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. David E. Martin Director Automotive Safety Engineering General Motors Corporation 30400 Mound Road Warren, MI 48090-9015

Thank you for your letter of July 30, 1985, to Administrator Steed concerning the requirements of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. Your letter was referred to my office for reply. I regret the delay in our response.

You asked the agency to reconsider its interpretation of the requirements of S4.1.1 of the standard which requires the installation of "seat belt anchorages for a Type 2 seat belt assembly" at certain positions in motor vehicles. You specifically asked that we issue a new interpretation that S4.1.1 is satisfied by installation of safety belt anchorages utilized by a safety belt meeting the occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. You also asked that if a new interpretation could not be issued, then the agency should treat your letter as a petition for rulemaking. As discussed below, the agency believes that the change you seek can only be made by a rulemaking proceeding. Therefore, as you requested, we will treat your letter as a petition for rulemaking, which is granted.

You offered several arguments in support of your view that the existing language of S4.1.1 is satisfied if a passenger car is equipped with anchorages for safety belts meeting the occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 208. You noted that the definition of a Type 2 safety belt assembly set forth in S3 of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, is based solely on the existence of pelvic and upper torso restraints and does not differentiate between manual and automatic belts. You also noted that S4.3(j) of Standard no. 209 applies to Type 1 and Type 2 belts and that the agency has interpreted section S4.3(j) to apply to both automatic and manual safety belts.

You also argued that redundant anchorages would not be used since an owner would not purchase an aftermarket manual belt intended to be anchored in the vehicle "B" pillar, if a door-anchored safety belt were available from the manufacturer. You said this would be particularly true of the door-mounted detachable automatic safety belts General Motors intends to use. In addition, you pointed out that the agency April 1985 proposal to require dynamic testing of manual belts also supports the elimination of the requirement for additional anchorages. You noted that the agency proposed that dynamically-tested manual belts would be exempt from the anchorage location requirements of Standard No. 210. Thus, a manufacturer may have anchorages outside of Standard No. 210 location zones, but the automatic belts attached to the anchorages would meet the occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 205. You said that a manual belt attached to anchorages within Standard No. 201's zone might not meet Standard No. 208's occupant protection requirements.

Finally, you said that the cost impact of providing the additional anchorages is not minimal. You said that "the cost penalty to General Motors customers would be approximately $6,000,000 annually when all vehicles were redesigned assuming that the vehicles were required to incorporate automatic restraints."

While we believe that you have raised a number of important issues concerning the current requirements of Standard No. 210, we believe that given the specific language of S4.1.1, any change to those requirements can only be made through a rulemaking proceeding. Standard No. 210, as currently written, specifically refers to providing anchorages for a Type 2 safety belt. The agency his consistently recognized a distinction between Type 2 belts and automatic belts. That distinction is based on a comparison of the design features of a two point automatic belt with those of a Type 2 lap/shoulder safety belt. Standard No. 209 defines a seat belt assembly as "a strap, webbing, or similar device" used to secure a person in a crash. Under Standard No. 203. a Type 2 seat belt assembly is defined as a strap, webbing or similar device which provides "pelvic and upper torso restraint." Thus, a Type 2 safety belt provides webbing to restrain both the pelvis and upper torso and requires three anchorages to be installed. In contrast, an automatic belt can use webbing to provide upper torso restraint, which would require two anchorages to install, and not have webbing to restrain the pelvis. Instead, a two point automatic belt relies on non-belt technology, such as a knee bolster, to restrain movement of the pelvis.

The agency recognized the design distinctions between Type 2 belts and automatic belts by specifically providing a separate definition of automatic belt in S4.5.3 of Standard No. 208. In addition, the agency recognized a distinction between automatic and Type 2 belts by specifying in Standard No. 208 that an automatic belt may be used "in place of any seat belt assembly otherwise required by" S4 of the standard. The other seat belt assemblies required by 54 are Type 1 and Type 2 systems. To further contrast the distinction between automatic belts and Type 2 belts, S4.5.3.1 of Standard No. 208 specifically provides that "an automatic belt that provides only pelvic restraint may not be uses...to meet the requirements of any option under S4 and in place of any seat belt assembly otherwise required by that option."

Given these distinctions between a Type 2 and an automatic belt, we believe that the reference to a Type 2 belt in S4.1.1 of Standard No. 210 requires us to retain our current interpretation of that provision. However, we do believe you have raised important questions about whether that provision should be changed. We expect to begin rulemaking shortly on this issue.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

USG 2421

July 30, 1985

The Honorable Diane Steed Administrator -- NHTSA

Docket 74-14, Notice 38

Dear Ms. Steed:

General Motors is currently developing new vehicle models which will be introduced concurrent with, or after, the start of the passive restraint phase-in period. This has necessitated a review of NHTSA FMVSS interpretations as they would apply to seat belt restraint systems. It is apparent from that review that several previous NHTSA interpretations do not comprehend current automatic seat belt technology.

Of specific concern to General Motors is NHTSA documentation which suggests that automatic seat belts are experimental and, therefore, not "Type 2" seat belts for the purposes of S4.1.1. of FMVSS 210. Without assurance that the position set forth in these NHTSA documents is no longer considered current by the agency, a manufacturer is faced with the prospect of having to add manual seat belt anchors into a vehicle even though automatic seat belts are to be installed.

1 A NHTSA position that additional manual belt anchors were necessary because of the "experimental" nature of automatic seat belts was first noted in Docket 72-23, Notice 5 (43 FR 53440, dated November 27, 1978) which granted a petition by General Motors to exempt automatic belts from the anchorage location requirements in FMVSS 210. Most recently, the agency in its January 29, 1985 response to a letter from the Daihatsu Motor Company regarding the redundant anchor requirement reiterated that, "The exemption was provided for in the standard to allow manufacturers to experiment with various automatic belt designs."

While NHTSA's position that automatic seat belts are "experimental" was perhaps appropriate in 1978, we believe that a change is warranted in light of design developments and recent regulatory initiatives. Significant field experience has been gained over the last decade with automatic belt designs, e.g. the VW Rabbit and GM Chevette. In addition, FMVSS 208 rulemaking responses suggest that many manufacturers are currently developing such belt systems in anticipation of the passive restraint requirements. Finally, concern for public reaction to automatic seat belts, which is basic to the agency's use of the term "experimental" was discounted by the Department of Transportation (DOT) in its July 17, 1984 final rule (Docket 74-14, Notice 36). Noting that most, if not all manufacturers, would be expected to use detachable automatic seatbelts, DOT stated that, "Detachable belts should alleviate some consumer concerns about automatic belts."

The aforementioned NHTSA letters of interpretation notwithstanding, there is existing regulatory language which General Motors believes supports a position that S4.1.1 of FMVSS 210 is satis-fied if a passenger car is equipped with any belt restraint system meeting the performance requirements of FMVSS 208. Most compelling is the fact that the definition of a "Type 2" belt assembly, as set forth in S3 of FMVSS 209, is based solely on the existence of pelvic and upper torso restraints. The definition does not differentiate between manual and automatic belt systems. Further, S4.3 (j) of FMVSS 209 states that the requirements of that section apply to Type 1 and Type 2 belt systems. This has been interpreted by the agency to include both manual and automatic seat belt systems. (See NHTSA letter of interpretation to Volkswagon, dated August 7, 1981.)

A review of FMVSS 210 regulatory history also supports a position that seat belt performance is neither assured nor necessarily limited by anchor locations. While vehicles equipped with manual belts meeting the existing anchorage location requirements of S4.3.1 of FMVSS 210 have demonstrated excellent performance in the field, this experience should not be interpreted as establishing that other anchorage locations would not have produced equally good results. In fact a parametric study by General Motors, which was provided to NHTSA in 1979 (USG 1763), suggests that specific vehicle interior parameters, such as occupant proximity to steering columns, instrument panel, etc., could have more influence on measured dummy data than some of the restraint parameters. A copy of that study is attached.

While the above discussion deals with the regulatory aspects of S4.1.1 of FMVSS 210, there are additional compelling reasons for a new interpretation of that section. These reasons are based on practical implications as well as recent rulemaking actions that bear on the existing interpretations.

Most importantly, the redundant anchors would very likely never be used. It is highly improbable that a customer would demand an aftermarket manual belt intended to be anchored in the vehicle "B" pillar, if a door anchored belt were available from the manufacturer as a replacement for the OEM automatic seat belt. This would be true whether or not the passive restraint requirements were eventually rescinded. As noted in General Motors' response to Docket 74-14; Notice 36 (USG 2284), automatic seat belt designs would need to be detachable to ensure public acceptability. As a result, a detachable automatic seat belt design would also be usable as a manual seat belt. (See Attachment 6 of USG 22B4). This "convertibility" feature would be expected to further reduce the likelihood of replacement.

The redundant seat belt anchor issue is clouded by NHTSA's recent manual belt dynamic test proposal in Docket 74-14, Notice 38. If enacted, that proposal would provide manual belts with the same exemption from the anchorage location requirements in FMVSS 210 now afforded automatic belts. This would allow manufacturers to find an optimum anchor location for manual belt systems on the basis of best overall performance. With this scenario, the S4.1.1 requirement in FMVSS 210 becomes even more inappropriate in that it may not reflect a belt anchor location needed to meet the FMVSS 208 injury criteria.

General Motors is concerned that cost factors may have been understated and this may have misled NHTSA regarding the need for a review of the current S4.1.1 interpretation. This is suggested by the agency's denial of a 1981 Toyo Kogyo petition (46 FR 54391) wherein it was stated that, ".the cost increase associated with these additional anchorages is minimal at best". The cost penalty to General Motors customers would be approximately $6,000,000 annually when all vehicles were redesigned, assuming that the vehicles were required to incorporate automatic restraints.

In summary, it is General Motors view that the requirements of S4.1.1 in FMVSS 210 would be satisfied by the vehicle seat belt anchors utilized by any belt restraint system that meets the performance requirements of FMVSS 208 and requests that the agency issue an interpretation to that effect. That interpretation would acknowledge that a three-point automatic belt qualifies as a Type 2 belt; therefore, additional anchors would not be required. If such interpretation is not possible, General Motors requests notification of that fact and further requests that this letter be treated as a petition for amendment of S4.1.1 of FMVSS 210 in a manner which supports General Motors view, as set forth above.

Sincerely,

David E. Martin, Director Automotive Safety Engineering cc: B. Felrice G. Hunter S. Esch Docket 74-14, Notice 38

ID: 86-2.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/21/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Dave Trowbridge

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Dave Trowbridge Aftermarket Sale Creation Windows of Indiana, Inc. P.O. Box 1046 Elkhart, Indiana 46515

Dear Mr. Trowbridge:

This is in reply to your letter of February 25, 1986, with reference to a design for a center high-mounted stop lamp intended for pickup covers or shells. You have asked for our advice regarding the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

The center high-mounted stop lamp is required only on passenger cars, and its specifications apply only to original or replacement equipment on cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985. There are no requirements for aftermarket applications such as you envision. The legality of your device would be determined under the laws of a State where the lamp is installed or used.

We would recommend, however, that you attempt to conform your device as closely as possible to Federal requirements, such as an illuminated lens area of not less than 4 square inches, and mounted in such a manner as to minimize reflections in the rear glass. A copy of the Federal standard is enclosed.

I hope that this answers your questions. We appreciate your interest in motor vehicle safety.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

February 25, 1986 Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Assn. 400 7th Street Southwest Washington, DC 20590

Gentlemen:

We are manufacturers of custom windows and doors for the recreational vehicle market, automotive aftermarket and second party vehicle manufacturers. Of particular concern is our production and design of the "3rd stop light" to our door assemblies for pickup cover doors (see attached).

Our doors are supplied to manufacturers of these covers or shells and will be supplied with this added safety feature.

Your assistance, at your earliest possible convenience, is appreciated in advance regarding those pertinent and applicable NHTSA, FMVSS or other specifications that may apply to the mounting of this light assembly to the inside of the door assemblies we manufacture for our customers. The light assembly itself will be either sourced or manufactured with concern for those specifications that may apply to the light and its visibility, wiring, etc.

Cordially, Dave Trowbridge Aftermarket Sales

DT/jb

Attachment

ID: 86-2.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/21/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Robert R. Clark

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter dated October 21, 1985, inquiring about the certification responsibilities under federal law of your client, a new car dealer. You stated in your letter that your client plans to convert new automobiles into limousines. These limousines would then be sold wholesale to dealers.

The relevant federal statute is the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1391 et seq.). Under section 103 of the Act, this agency issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations applying to motor vehicles and their equipment.

As we understand the facts stated in your letter, the automobiles will be completed by the original manufacturer who will certify that they meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Your client plans to alter the automobiles prior to their first purchase for purposes other than resale.

Your client's plan to convert automobiles would make him an alterer, subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 567.7, Certification. An alterer is a person who alters a previously certified vehicle by means other than the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components or minor finishing operations, or in such a manner that the vehicle's stated weight ratings are no longer valid. If the alteration is performed before the first purchase of the vehicle for purposes other than resale, the alterer must supplement the certification label by affixing an additional label stating that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards and containing the firm or individual name of the alterer.

An alterer is also considered a manufacturer for the purposes of notification and recall for defects or noncompliance under the Act and is subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Reports.

In addition, please note that your client should take care in making the conversions not to harm the vehicles' safety features. Under section 108 of the Act, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business must not knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design which is installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Your client would be subject to this prohibition which applies both before and after the first purchase of a motor vehicle for purposes other than resale.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

SINCERELY,

TABBERT & CAPEHART ATTORNEYS AT LAW

October 21, 1985

Jeffrey R. Miller, Esqu. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Miller:

On Tuesday, October 15, 1985, I telephoned your office and spoke with Mr. Steve Oeshch regarding a client of this firm who wishes to convert fully assembled automobiles into limousines. After speaking with Mr. Oeshch, he suggested that I write to your office and request a formal interpretation in regard to this matter, in view of the facts as discussed.

The client is a new car dealer in Anderson, Indiana. He desires to purchase fully assembled new automobiles from the manufacturer and subsequently convert them into limousines. The limousines will in turn be sold wholesale to dealers.

I wish to know which federal Department of Transportation statutes must be complied with and how to classify the client, i.e. dealer, manufacturer or remanufacturer.

Could you kindly at your earliest convenience render an opinion regarding this matter. Any assistance you might give me would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

SINCERELY, Robert R. Clark

ID: 86-2.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/21/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ernest Farmer -- Director of Pupil Transportation, Tennessee Dept. of Education

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Ernest Farmer Director of Pupil Transportation Tennessee Department of Education Nashville, Tennessee 37219-5335

This responds to your February 19, 1986 letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) asking whether Federal motor vehicle safety standards prohibit commercial businesses from using fiberglass on the exterior of school buses. As explained below, the answer to your question is no.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes NHTSA to issue minimum performance standards for school buses. Our safety standards do not specify the materials to be used for the exterior of school buses. However, the materials chosen by a manufacturer must be strong enough to enable the bus to meet the requirements of those standards. Among those requirements are the rollover protection ones of Standard No. 220, fuel system requirements of Standard No. 301, and strength requirements of Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength, for body panel joints on school buses with gross vehicle weight ratings over 10,000 pounds. Manufacturers of new school buses using fiberglass for school bus exteriors must certify that their vehicles conform to the requirements of all applicable school bus safety standards.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

February 19, 1986

Ms. Deadra Holm U. S. Department of Transportation NHTSA 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Ms. Holm,

We have discovered the presence of fiber glass in the outer skin of the Van Conversions manufactured by the Collins Industries Inc. of Hutchinson, Kansas. While, admittedly, we see little if any, safety hazard associated with the practice, we do forsee the possibility of legal actions "down the road" if children are seriously injured and the presence of this material is exposed.

Our school bus specifications require compliance with the National Minimum School Bus Standards as well as all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to the manufacture, sale and operation of pupil transportation equipment. My question is: Does the use of fiberglass in the manufacture of Type II school buses conflict with any known FMVSS?

An early response will be appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

Ernest Farmer Director of Pupil Transportation

ID: 86-2.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/21/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: William Shapiro -- Manager, Regulatory Affairs, Volvo Cars of North America

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

William Shapiro, P.E. Manager, Regulatory Affairs Volvo Cars of North American Rockleigh, NJ 07647 Dear Mr. Shapiro: Thank you for your letter of November 14, 1985, requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. You explained that Volvo is planning to voluntarily add an extra anchorage for type 2 safety belt in the middle rear designated seating position, which is already equipped with two anchorages for a Type 1 safety belt. You asked whether the third anchorage point would have to meet the anchorage location requirements set forth in S4.3.2 of the standard. As explained below, the additional anchorage would not have to comply with the location requirements of the standard. As you correctly pointed out, S4.1.2 allows manufacturers the option of installing anchorages for either a Type1 or Type 2 safety belt at the center rear designated seating position. Thus, by providing anchorages for a Type 1 belt at that seating position. Thus, by providing anchorages for a Type 1 belt at that seating position, Volvo has met the installation requirement of S4.1.2 The agency has stated in past interpretations, such as in a March 1, 1979 letter to Ford, that systems are not required to meet Federal safety standards, provided the additional components or systems do not destroy the ability of required systems to comply with the standards. Thus, you may install a third anchorage if it does not affect the ability of the required anchorages to meet the standard. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

11/14/85

Re: Request for Interpretation Std. 210 Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages

Dear Ms. Erika Jones:

FMVSS #210 specifies that seat belt anchorages for Type 2 seat belt assembly shall be installed for each forward-facing outboard designated seating position in passenger cars other than convertibles, The standard goes on to require that seat belt anchorages for a Type 1 or a Type 2 seat belt assembly shall be installed for each designated seating position, except a passenger seat in a bus, or a designated seating position for which seat belt anchorages for Type 2 seat belt assembly are required by S 4.1.1.

Volvo is planning to voluntarily add an extra anchorage for a Type 2 seat belt in the middle rear designated seating position. This is in addition to the two (2) anchorage points for a Type 1 seat belt that are used to meet the requirements of S.4.1.2.

We interpret that this voluntary third anchorage point does not have to meet the requirements in S.4.3.2 Location. Please confirm this interpretation as soon as possible.

If additional information is required on this matter, don't hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

William Shapiro, P.E. Manager, Regulator Affairs Product Planning and Development Volvo Cars of North America

ID: 86-2.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/21/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. S. Elvin-Jensen

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

April 21, 1986 Mr. S. Elvin-Jensen Safety Transport Inter (Pty) Ltd. P.O. Box 1513 Dassenberg 7350 SOUTH AFRICA Dear Mr. Elvin-Jensen: This responds to your letter dated August 28, 1985, asking whether a child booster seat marketed by your company complies with Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. I regret the delay in replying to your letter. The descriptive materials accompanying your letter indicate that your child seat is secured by a vehicle's belt system, and has no harness of its own. Standard No. 213 applies to all child restraint systems. Those except Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh not more than 50 pounds." The information enclosed with your letter states that the child booster seat is intended to seat children weighing from 15 to 32 kg., which is equivalent to 33 to 70.5 pounds. This weight range includes children who weigh up to 50 pounds. Therefore, Standard No. 213 would apply to your product if it is marketed in this country. You ask if Standard No. 213 requires child restraint systems to have their own harness. The answer is no. the specific requirements of the standard on child restraint harness systems only apply if a manufacturer provides belts as a part of the system. Thus, for example, section 5.4.3.3 does not require that each child restraint be equipped with a harness meeting the requirements of that section. Instead, it provides that "each child restraint system...that has belts designed to restrain the child" must comply with those requirements. (Emphasis added.) Under S6.1 of the standard, your child booster seat would be tested with a Type I safety belt (i.e., lap belt) attached. Although abdominal loading is not specifically measured in the test, the agency is concerned that when a vehicle lap belt is used with a child restraint system to restrain a child, the belt be positioned so that it does not apply impact loads to the abdomen of the child. The abdomen is, of course, the area of the body most vulnerable to the forces imposed by the belt in a crash. thus, the agency believes that the lap belt should be held in place by the child restraint so that it passes over the pelvis and thighs of a child, areas of the body best able to withstand the forces imposed by the vehicle belt. Based on the photograph of your child booster seat, we are concerned that the vehicle lap belt may not be properly positioned and securely held by the restraint. Instead, the lap belt may allow submarining and may apply impact loads to the abdomen, unless the seating surface of the restraint is designed to prevent submarining. The agency is also concerned that the lap belt should be properly positioned and securely held so that no substantial inertial loads of the booster seat are applied to the child. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act), as amended, 15 U.S.C. 1391, et seq., under which Standard No. 213 was issued, provides for self-certification by manufacturers instead of the type-approval or homologation process used in Europe and elsewhere. Under the Act, manufacturers are responsible for certifying that their items of motor vehicle equipment, such as child seats, comply with the requirements of any applicable safety standard. If you plan to market your child safety seat in this country, you should ensure that your child safety seat complies with all of the applicable requirements of the standard, including the certification requirements of S5.5. Under the Act and our regulations, manufacturers also have the responsibility to conduct notification and remedy campaigns for safety related defects or noncompliances in their products (sections 151-159). The Act defines a manufacturer as "any person engaging in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale." In the event that neither the importer nor the assembling manufacturer met an obligation imposed on a "manufacturer" by the Act or our regulations, the agency would consider taking enforcement action against both parties. Any such obligation, however, could be satisfied by either party. In addition, there are two other regulations which affect manufacturers. Those regulations require manufacturers to provide the agency with certain identifying information (49 CFR Part 566), and, in the case of foreign manufacturers, to designate an agent for the service of process (49 CFR Part 551). Copies of Standard No. 213, the Act, Part 566, Part 551, 19 CFR 12.80 and an instruction sheet for new manufacturers are enclosed. I hope this information is helpful to you. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures

ID: 86-2.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/03/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Bobbi Fiedler

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

The Honorable Bobbi Fiedler House of Representatives 1607 Longworth House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Ms. Fiedler:

Thank you for your letter enclosing correspondence from your constituent, Mr. William Griffiths of Newbury Park, who asked several questions about our regulations for safety belts on passenger motor vehicles, buses and school buses. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply.

Your constituent asked why safety belt designs vary between different seating positions and among different types of motor vehicles. He observes that some vehicles have a combination of pelvic and upper torso restraints ("lap and shoulder belts") in the front seats, while providing only lap belts for the rear seats. He further notes that safety belts are not required for passengers in buses and school buses. Apparently Mr. Griffiths believes that shoulder belts are uncomfortable and feels that they should not be installed in the front seats of passenger motor vehicles.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to clarify our requirements for your constituent. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for developing safety standards for all new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, establishes performance requirements for the protection of vehicle occupants in crashes. Under FMVSS No. 208, motor vehicle manufacturers must provide lap and shoulder belts for front outboard passenger positions in order to comply with the standard. Since persons in the front seating positions of an automobile should be protected from rigid structures forward of those positions, such as the windshield pillars, He believe that an upper torso restraint of some kind is necessary. Our requirements differ for the rear seating positions, where only a lap belt need be provided, because the area forward of those positions does not contain the relatively hard surfaces found in the areas surrounding the front seats.

As Mr. Griffiths has noted, our safety standards for buses and school buses do not require safety belts for passengers. NHTSA does not require safety belts for transit-type buses because the crash forces experienced by those vehicles are less severe than those of lighter vehicles in similar collisions. Also, the safety record for transit buses is good Accordingly, we believe that revising our requirements for their seating systems would not reduce injuries substantially. Safety belts are not required for passengers in large school buses because those vehicles are required to provide high levels of occupant crash protection through a concept called :"compartmentalization." Compartmentalization requires that the interior of large school buses by constructed so that children are protected without the need to use safety belts. The seating improvements include higher and stronger seat backs, additional seat padding, hand improved seat spacing and performance.

Your constituent might be interested to know that we have addressed his concern regarding the discomfort some passengers experience with safety belts equipped with shoulder restraints. We have taken steps to improve the comfort and convenience of safety belt Systems by a recent amendment to our safety standards. A copy of the amendment is enclosed.

I hope this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact my office if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

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

Dec. 20 1985

Nancy Miller Department of Transportation

Sir:

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

Yours truly,

M. C.

Please Return ATTN: Louise Gessford 1607 Longworth

Rep Fiedler

Why do the car manufacturers have different seat belt configurations, with the belt in the front seats going around the waist and over the shoulder and the back seat only around waist, some have front seat only around waist?

Why do the city buses not have seat belts for the passengers? Also school buses?

We the people are the testing area for the car industry.

These are a few of the negative views after talking to many people about new seat belt law.

Have they thought about people who have had heart surgery, and other people having surgery who still have very tender areas, also women with large breasts, the only relief is to ride with your hand under the belt in these irritating areas in order to obey the law. This seems quite stupid.

Summation: There definitely should be more research done on this problem: either have the car manufacturers install waist belts in all cars or resort to air bags.

Will await your reply

William Griffith 815 492-5432

ID: 86-2.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/21/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Continental Products Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Peter Hofmann Product Manager Continental Products Corporation 1200 Wall Street West Lyndhurst, NJ 07071

Dear Mr. Hofmann:

This responds to your letter, asking three questions about any National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requirements for labeling tires as "all-season" tires. I will answer your questions in the order they were presented in your letter.

1. Is there a definition issued by NHTSA regarding mud and snow tire tread design characteristics?

No, NHTSA has not issued any such specifications. For all of our tire regulations, except the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS: 49 CFR 5575.104), a tire is subject to the same requirements, regardless of its specific design characteristics. That is, all new passenger car tires must satisfy the requirements of Standard No. 109 and be labeled in accordance with Part 574. This is true whether the new passenger car tire is a mud and snow tire, all-season tire, high speed-rated tire, temporary spare tire, or a normal highway service tire. Accordingly, the agency has had no reason to define particular characteristics of a mud and snow tire for any regulation or standard besides the UTQGS, and the agency has not done so.

The UTQGS apply to all new passenger car tires with a few exceptions. One of the groups of new passenger car tires not subject to the UTQGS is "deep tread, winter-type snow tires." When all- season tires were first introduced, several manufacturers asked whether all-season tires qualified as deep tread, winter-type snow tires. The agency responded to these questions with an explanation of what the UTQGS means by the phrase "deep tread, winter-type snow tires." This discussion appeared at 44 FR 30140, May 24, 1979, and reads as follows:

"While all-weather tires may share some characteristics of snow tires under industry categorization systems, they are not limited in acceptable use to winter periods by virtue of their construction. The qualifying language 'deep tread, winter-type' indicates NHTSA's intention to except only a strictly limited class of tires, the deep tread rubber and tread design of which makes year round use on passenger automobiles inadvisable. Since all-weather tires are designed with a tread depth which permits and is in fact intended for safe operation throughout the year, they do not qualify as 'deep tread, winter-type snow tires' for purposes of the applicability of the UTQG Standards."

Hence, for the purposes of the UTQGS, it is the manufacturer who must, in the first instance, determine if a passenger car tire design incorporates a tread depth and design such that the tire qualifies as a deep tread, winter-type snow tire. A manufacturer making such a determination is not required to label the tire as a mud and snow tire; instead, the manufacturer simply is not required to comply with the UTQGS requirements for that tire design. In the course of its compliance enforcement for tires, the agency may reexamine the question of whether a particular tire design is a deep tread, winter-type snow tire. This is the only context in which the agency has ever addressed the issue of what constitutes a snow tire.

2. Can a tire have a paper label affixed stating that it is a mud and snow tire even if the symbol for a mud and snow tire is not molded into the tire sidewall?

NHTSA has no regulatory requirements specifying how or that a tire be labeled as a mud and snow tire. Therefore, your company may label mud and snow tires in any manner you wish without violating any NHTSA requirements.

It is possible that the Federal Trade Commission has established some requirements for the marketing of a tire as a mud and snow tire, under its authority to prevent "unfair or deceptive" marketing practices. To learn if the Federal Trade Commission has any requirements, you may write to: Division of Marketing Practices, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, Sixth Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580.

You may also wish to learn if there are any voluntary industry standards for the labeling of mud and snow tires. The American standardization organization for tires is the Tire and Rim Association, Inc. You may contact them at 3200 West Market Street, Akron, Ohio 44313. Naturally, the decision of whether to follow those voluntary industry standards is left to the discretion of your company.

3. Can a tire be labeled as an all-season tire even if no marking showing it is a mud and snow tire or all-season tire is molded into the sidewall?

The answer to this question is identical to the answer given above for question number 2. NHTSA has no regulations specifying that an all-season tire must be so labeled on the sidewall, so your company will not violate any NHTSA requirements by marketing the tire as an all-season tire without molding information into the sidewall. You may wish to contact the Federal Trade Commission to learn if they have any requirements and the Tire & Rim Association to learn if there is any voluntary industry practice in this area.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

March 13, 1986

Mrs. Erika Jones Chief Council - NOA-3O NHTSA 400 7th Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mrs. Jones:

We have the following questions regarding All Season tire labeling:

- Is there a definition in existence regarding M + S tread design characteristics issued by the NHTSA?

- Can a tire be labeled with M + S (paper sticker), even though the M + S is not embossed in the sidewall?

- Can we label a tire -All Season- even though no marking referring to M + S or All Season is embossed in the sidewall?

We would appreciate an answer to the above as soon as possible, as we are about to introduce new product lines in the All Season category.

Sincerely,

Peter Hofmann Product Manager

PH/emp

ID: 86-2.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/22/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: S.H. Jacobs

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. S. H. Jacobs Product Manager Robert Bosch Corporation P.O. Box 4601 North Suburban, IL 60198

Dear Mr. Jacobs:

This responds to your letter dated December 6, 1985, inquiring whether any Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply to spark plugs. regret the delay in responding to your inquiry.

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 1391, et seq. (the Act), this agency has the authority to establish safety standards for motor vehicles and their equipment. At this time, none of these standards is applicable to spark plugs.

You should note that under Part B of the Act and our regulations, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, such as spark plugs, have the responsibility to conduct notification and remedy campaigns for safety-related defects in their products. I have enclosed an information sheet outlining our defect and other regulations.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of Chief Consul Washington, D.C. 20590

December 6, 1985

Subject: DOT/NHTSA Standards and Requirements for the Sale of Spark Plugs

Dear Sirs,

As per our letter dated October 9, 1985, it is our understanding there are not any DOT/NHTSA standards and/or regulations governing the sale of spark plugs (copy attached). However, we require a written reply from your department confirming the non-existence of any DOT/NHTSA standards and/or regulations regarding the sale of spark plugs.

Our customer requires a written confirmation as soon as possible. Your immediate attention to this matter will be appreciated.

Sincerely, Attachment

S.H. Jacobs Product Manager

cc: ASD - L. Milligan

Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of Chief Consul Washington, D.C. 20590 October 9, 1985

Subject: DOT/NHTSA Standards and Requirements for the Sale of Spark Plugs

Dear Sirs,

The Robert Bosch Corporation sells spark plugs through K-Mart stores across the country. One of the conditions for this sale is that our product conforms in all respects with all applicable federal, state and local laws, orders and regulations, including but not limited to those regarding occupational safety and health".

After conversations with various DOT and NHTSA personnel, It is our understanding there are not any DOT/NHTSA standards and/or regulations covering the sale of spark plugs.

Enclosed is a copy of the letter from K-Mart requesting such documentation for your review.

We request a written reply confirming the non-existence of any DOT/ NHTSA standards and/or regulations regarding the sale of spark plugs.

Your prompt attention to this matter is appreciated.

Sincerely,

S. H. Jacobs Product Manager

cc: AMA J. Crowley ASD L. Milligan

ID: 86-2.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/23/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Chih-Lo Hwang

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Chih-Lo Hwang Tetley, Inc. 7 High Street Spring Valley, N.Y. 10977

Dear Chih-lo Hwang:

This is in reply to your letter of March 3, 1986, stating that you are a manufacturer of the "center high-mounted collision avoidance lights", and have heard from AAMVA that there is a law prohibiting any selling of a safety device that has not been "DOT" approved. You have asked for a copy of this law.

We are not familiar with the AAMVA position with regard to center high-mounted stop lamps, but we will provide you with our views. First, the phrase "DOT approved" is frequently and mistakenly used to refer to equipment that must be certified as complying with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The Department neither "approves" nor "disapproves" motor vehicles and equipment. However, motor vehicles and certain motor vehicle equipment must be certified by their manufacturers as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

With respect to the center high-mounted stop lamp, all passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985, must be equipped with a center high-mounted stop lamp as original equipment and any center high-mounted stop lamp that is manufactured to replace this original equipment must be certified as complying with Federal requirements. If the replacement lamp is not manufactured to comply and certified as complying. then its sale is a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. I am enclosing a copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 which contains the requirements for center high-mounted stop lamps.

On the other hand, if the center high-mounted stop lamp is intended for sale in the aftermarket, to be used on a passenger car manufactured before September 1, 1985, which never had one as original equipment, it does not have to be manufactured to and certified as complying with Federal requirements. Nevertheless we encourage aftermarket manufacturer to voluntarily meet the Federal requirements. The lamp, however, may be subject to "approval" by the laws of the State in which the lamp pill be sold or used.

If you have any further questions, we shall be pleased to answer them.

Sincerely.

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

7 HIGH STREET SPRING VALLEY NEW YORK 10977 TEL.(914)352-6803

March 3 1986

Ms.Erika Z Jones Chief Counselor of National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7 Street S, W. Washington D.C. 20590

Dear Ms Jones:

We are the manufacturer of the center high mounted collision avoidance lights. We have heard from AAMVA there is such law that Prohibited any illegal selling of this safety device item which have not been "DOT" approved, but unfortunately most our buyers do not familiar with this law. We like to prove it to them. Would you kind enough to send us a copy of this law? Your early respond would be deeply appreciated. Thank you.

Very Truly Yours, Tetley Inc.

Chih-Lo Hwang