ID: aiam0329

Dear Mr. Mitoya: This is in reply to your letter of April 6, 1971, requesting a interpretation of section S7 of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection.; Your question concerns the requirement of S7.1.2 that the intersectio of the upper torso belt with the lap belt shall be at least 6 inches from the occupant's front vertical centerline. As we understand your question, you have asked whether this 6-inch distance must be achieved by using an inboard belt segment of fixed length, or whether a manual adjusting device may be used that will permit lengthening of the inboard belt segment when the seat is moved forward.; It is the intent of section S.1.2 to require an intersection point tha cannot be adjusted so that it is less than 6 inches from a 50th percentile male occupant's centerline. We are considering a possible amendment to the standard to clarify this intent.; Please advise us if further explanation is needed. Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Acting Associate Administrator, Moto Vehicle Programs;

ID: nht80-1.49

DATE: 04/14/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: R.C.S. ENTERPRISES, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of February 12, 1979, to Mr. Vladislav Radovich asking whether your "Kar-Kot" rear seat extension must comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standard covering child restraints. Your letter was forwarded to my office for reply.

The Federal standard currently in effect for child restraints, Standard No. 213, Child Seating Systems (49 CFR 571.213), does not apply to "systems for use only by recumbent or semi-recumbent children." According to the literature you enclosed with your letter, the Kar-Kot "has been designed to span the rear floor area and greater part of rear seat" and was "developed for sleeping/resting". The literature warns that the product is not to be used for seating". Since the Kar-Kot is to be used only by recumbent or semi-recumbent children, it is thus exempt from the current standard.

The upgraded version of the child restraint standard, Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (44 FR 72131, December 13, 1979), is scheduled to go into effect on June 1, 1980. That standard applies to any device, including devices for use by recumbent or semi-recumbent children, "designed for use in a motor vehicle to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh not more than 50 pounds." If the "Kar-Kot" will only be used by children larger than those intended to be covered by Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, your product would not be required to meet the performance requirements of the standard. We note that the literature accompanying your letter makes no mention of any size or age limitations for child using your product. If the Kar-Kot is not to be used by children under 50 pounds, it should be clearly and permanently labeled to show that it is to be used by a specific size and age range of children.

Regardless of whether it is covered by the standard or not, your product is an item of motor vehicle equipment. Therefore, the recall and remedy provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety-Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1420) would apply to any safety-related defects in the Kar-Kot.

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

SINCERELY,

R.C.S. ENTERPRISES, INC.

February 12, 1980

Vladislav Radovich, Engineer -- Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety Adm.

Dear Mr. Radovich: I appreciate the courtesy shown me via the telephone today. Per your request, we are asking for clarification of 49 CFR Part 571.213 Child Restraint Systems, in relation to our Kar-Kot rear seat extension.

Please note, prior to manufacturing this product, your Department of the D.O.T., the Highway Safety Institute of Ann Arbor, and All State Insurance Safety Department were contacted to insure the design of a safe product. All research and studies find that the safest spot of a car in case of collision is being recumbent on rear seat.

To further substantiate that conclusion, we requested the Highway Safety Institute to supply us with computer readouts of safety inherent in sleeping on the rear seat of car. As you know, these are real life accidents of the most serious nature and biased toward serious injury. (Readout copies enclosed.) Recap as follows: Total: Cars Vehicle Occupants 8,976 15,219

Total number of rear seat recumbent children ages 2-14: 60 children Ages 0-3 Ages 4-14 No treatment: 7 26 First Aid 8 15 Released after 24 hour hospital observation: 0 3 Unknown: 0 1

Our telephone log of numerious call to your division - Jerry Medlin, Bob Nelson and Bill Smith - indicated to us seat belt restraints would be more of a safety hindrance while lying on the rear seat, than a help and we were advised our Kar-Kot rear seat extension would not require restraints and would be in full conpliance with Revised 213 Spec.

Should you determine that through an oversight this product is covered by Spec. 213, we request an exception.

I would like to follow through with your suggestion and would appreciate a meeting be set up with your department for the end of week of February 18, if that's convenient, to bring this matter to a conclusion. I will call you on Tuesday, February 19, regarding this meeting.

Thank you again for sending the Spec.

Richard C. Stehlik -- President

P.S. Our Product Liability carrier has never received a complaint of any sort-safety or otherwise.

(Graphics omitted)

Kar-Kot has been designed to span the rear floor area and greater part of rear seat. However, due to the drivers positioning of the front seat, the area of back seat not covered by Kar-Kot will vary from car to car. A folded blanket, etc. can be used to level the uncovered seat area, should it be necessary.

Fig. 2

Instructions for Kar-Kot use:

1. Remove protective coating from metal frame with a dry, clean cloth

2. Position Kar-Kot over seat at shown in fig. 3. Leave 1/2 inch of space between leading edge of frame and back of front seat. Unit should be parallel to floor, with at least one-half of Kar-Kot supported by car seat.

3. Swing leg to standing position and readjust length of leg if necessary.

This unit has been developed for sleeping/resting; do not use for seating.

Note: Remove adjustable leg of Mini/Compact Kar-Kot for folding should height adjustment be too long.

R.C.S. ENTERPRISES, INC., Box 925 Waynesboro, Virginia 22980

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 11763RLXS10

Lawrence H. Feder, Esq.
2450 Hollywood Blvd.
Suite 401
Hollywood, FL 33020

Dear Mr. Feder:

Thank you for your letter to Secretary Pena on behalf of your client, Mr. David Baret of Baby Comfort Inc., concerning the requirements of this agency for child restraint systems. Your letter was referred to my office for reply.

You explain in your letter that your client would like to sell child restraints manufactured abroad in the United States. However, the seats would apparently not be able to meet the dynamic performance requirements of Standard 213, AChild Restraint Systems,@ when tested according to the procedures of the standard. Those procedures specify that child seats such as those your client wishes to sell are to be secured to the test seat assembly with only a lap belt. You ask that the agency permit your client=s child seats to be tested with a lap and shoulder belt, instead of just the lap belt.

Your client wrote to my office in March asking whether the child restraints in question could be tested with a lap and shoulder belt. We explain in our response to Mr. Baret (copy enclosed) that Standard 213 requires his type of child seat to meet Standard 213's dynamic performance requirements when tested with only a lap belt. Certain types of child restraints are excepted from this testing requirement, but Mr. Baret=s restraint is not among these. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not have the authority to grant waivers from the testing or performance requirements of our safety standards, and can only change the requirements through a rulemaking proceeding.

I should note that we do not agree that testing the seat you describe with only a lap belt is inappropriate. Lap belts are provided in the rear seats of many older model vehicles still on the road, as well as in the rear center seating position of many newer model vehicles, which is generally the safest position for child seats. Because the restraint has its own harness system (unlike a belt-positioning seat), some consumers may not readily distinguish it from a conventional child seat and may mistakenly use it in a position that has a lap belt only. In view of such potential use, it would seem appropriate that the seat provide the minimum level of protection required by Standard 213 when restrained with a just a lap belt.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:213 d:4/29/96

ID: nht78-3.19

DATE: 04/05/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt for J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Grumman Flxible Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter asking whether Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and Safety Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Anchorages, would be applicable to a Type I seat belt assembly used as a securement device for wheelchairs in an urban transit bus.

Safety Standard No. 209 is an equipment standard that is applicable to any seat belt manufactured for use on passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks or buses. Therefore, the seat belt in question would have to comply with the performance requirements of that standard.

Safety Standard No. 210, however, only specifies requirements for seat belt anchorages at the driver's position on buses. Since the assembly you are concerned with would be at a passenger seating position in the bus, it would not have to comply with the anchorage requirements of Standard No. 210.

SINCERELY,

GRUMMAN FLXIBLE CORPORATION

February 10, 1978

Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attention: Hugh Oats

Dear Mr. Oats:

The Grumman Flxible Corporation is using an extra-long, Type 1 seat belt as a wheelchair securement device in association with the wheelchair accessibility option required by 49 CFR 609.15(c) for installation in urban transit buses. This seat belt is used in conjunction with an adjustable, padded arm extending from the vehicle wall area which can be positioned in front of the forward facing wheelchair passenger.

Is this seat belt subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies?

Is the anchorage for this seat belt assembly, installed in a transit bus at a location other than at the driver's position, subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages?

We appreciate very much your assistance with the above.

R. L. Ratz, P.E. Product Safety Engineering

ID: 86-3.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/07/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Karen Finkel -- Executive Director, National School Transportation Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Karen Finkel

Executive Director National School Transportation Association P.O. Box 26 Springfield Virginia 22152

This response to your March 3, 1986 letter to our office concerning requirements applicable to front seat restraining barriers on school buses. You asked whether the barriers meet the same Federal motor vehicle safety standards as the school bus seats. Specifically you are interested in barrier-seat separation and barrier performance requirements.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, establishes requirements for school bus seats and restraining barriers. Included in Standard No. 222 are paragraphs S5.2 through S5.2.3 which specifically apply to restraining barriers on school buses with gross vehicle weight ratings over 10,000 pounds. Since restraining barriers function to compartmentalize passengers in the same manner as school bus seats, the requirements of Standard No. 222 for barrier-seat separation distances and barrier strength are similar to the spacing and strength requirements for school bus seats. For example, S5.2.1 specifies that the distance between a restraining barrier's rear surface and the seating reference point of the first seat to the rear of the barrier must not be more than 24 inches. Also, under S5.2.3, barriers are tested for compliance with the forward performance requirements in the same manner as school bus seats. Both must withstand similar forces while maintaining component integrity. Force/deflection curves for seat backs and restraining barriers must fall within the zone specified in Figure 1 of Standard No. 222, and seat back and restraining barrier deflection must not exceed 14 inches. Further, restraining barriers and seat backs must meet the same impact zone requirements (S5.3) of the standard. Additional requirements for restraining barriers are specified in Standard No. 222. A copy of the standard is enclosed for your convenience.

You asked whether the front seat barrier is secured to the floor of the school bus in a different manner than the seats. Standard No. 222 does not specify how school bus restraining barriers or seats are to be secured to the floor of the bus. Manufacturers are free to select the manner of securing barriers and seats to the bus floor as long as those structures meet all applicable requirements of our safety standards.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

March 3, 1986

Mr. Jeffrey Miller, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Miller:

A member of the National School Transportation Association has requested a legal opinion as to whether the front seat barriers on school buses have to meet the same federal motor vehicle safety standards as the seats.

He's specifically interested in distance, flexibility-rigidness, the angle of the barrier and whether the barrier is secured to the floor in a different manner than the seats.

Thank you for your assistance. Please let me know if you need any further information.

Sincerely,

Karen Finkel Executive Director

KF/sb

cc: Robert Christian

ID: nht74-5.50

DATE: 04/22/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Company, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of April 5, 1974, requesting interpretations of two sections of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301 (39 FR 10588).

Your first question was whether dummies are required to be positioned at each front outboard seating position even if such dummies are not specified for testing under Standard No. 208. The answer to your question is yes. Standard No. 301 provides for testing with dummies at each front outboard seating position regardless of the Standard No. 208 testing provisions. Where, however, Standard No. 208 specifies additional test dummies, such dummies are to be included in the vehicle for Standard No. 301 testing.

Your second question was whether the dummies are to be restrained by belt systems until passive restraint systems become mandatory under Standard No. 208. The answer to this question is no. The dummies are to be restrained for testing under Standard No. 301 only by systems that require no action by the vehicle occupant. Therefore, dummies are not to be restrained during testing by belt systems, but only by the passive means, if any, that are employed in the vehicle.

Thank you for your inquiry. Yours Truly,

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD

April 5, 1974

Lawrence R. Schneider Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

This is to request your interpretation of the FMVSS 301, Fuel System Integrity, issued through the Federal Register on March 21, 1974.

(1) S6.1 Frontal barrier crash which states:

" . . . . at each front cutboard seating position and at any other position whose protection system is required to be tested, by a dummy under the provisions of Standard No. 208 . . . . . . . ".

May we understand from the above requirement that regardless of the provisions of the MVSS 208, we will have to provide the test dummies at each front outboard seating position? And, on the other hand, that it will not be necessary to provide the dummy at the frontal barrier crash test in any other position where installation is not required under the mandatory passive restraint system provided for in the MVSS 208? (See attached figure.) (2) Also, the S7.1.1 which states:

"Each dummy shall be restrained only by means that are installed in the vehicle for protection at its seating position and that require no action by the vehicle occupant".

May we understand from the above that the dummy which is only provided at each front outboard seating position, from our understanding in (1) of the above, shall be restrained by lap and shoulder belts until the proposed effective date of the mandatory passive restraint system under MVSS 208? And, that(Illegible Words) be able to restrain the dummy by lap belt if it will be installed in the front seat to meet the rollover requirement under MVSS 208. (See attached figure.)

Thank you for your attention to our request. We look forward to hearing from you regarding the above.

Tatsuo Kato Staff, Safety

9.1.75 effective date of MVSS 301 9.1.76 proposal effective date of MVSS 208

(Graphics omitted) no dummy for rear seating position no dummy for rear seating position the dummy restrained by lap and shoulder seat belt for front seating position the dummy unrestrained or the dummy restrained by lap belt which is installed to meet the rollover requirement

ID: 1984-3.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/10/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Purna Saggurti -- Research and Development, Nu-Fuel Industries Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Purna Saggurti Senior Executive Engineer Research & Development Nu-Fuel Industries, Inc. P.O. Box 220 Loretto, TN 38469

This responds to your letter of August 8, 1984, concerning the use of compressed natural gas (CGN) in vehicles. You asked the agency to clarify its position on CNG and to answer several questions about the alteration of a gasoline power vehicle so that it is both gasoline and CNG powered.

You are correct that Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, does not apply to CNG powered vehicles. The standard does not apply to vehicles using fuel, such as CNG, which has a boiling point below 32oF. Thus, the standard does not prevent the use of CNG in motor vehicles.

At the present time, the agency has no plans to extend the standard to CNG fuel systems. If you believe that a regulation on CNG systems is necessary, you can petition the agency to commence rulemaking. A copy of the agency's regulation on rulemaking petitions is enclosed.

The agency has prepared an extensive information sheet which explains how the standard applies to aftermarket installation of dual fuel systems in motor vehicles. Since the information sheet addresses the issues you have raised concerning CNG conversion, I am enclosing a copy for you review.

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

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosure

August 8, 1984 Mr. Frank A. Berndt, Chief Counsel N.H.T.S.A. NOA-30 U.S. Department of Transportation Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt,

As an alternate energy consulting agency, gaseous fuel Research and Development unit and a manufacturer of High Pressure Natural Gas Compressors, Carburetion Equipment and High Pressure Flow Meters, all of which are used in the automotive section for the application of Compressed Natural Gas as an alternative to gasoline and diesel, Nu-Fuel Industries, Inc. is concerned about the vague perspective of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 301-75 and the lack of a comparable standard for Compressed Natural Gas.

The purpose of FMVSS 301-75 "is to reduce deaths and injuries occuring from fires that result from fuel spillage during and after motor vehicle crashes", and applies to vehicles using fuel "with a boiling point above 32oF".

The purpose of FMVSS 301-75 is commendable and is quite the priority of all users and manufacturers but the boiling point limitation eliminates the applicability of this standard to such alternate fuels like Compressed Natural Gas, whose boiling point is way below 32oF.

It has become an unjustified norm in the State Commission offices like those of the State Board of Education and their Superintendents that as the FMVSS 301-75 does not apply to CNG and as there is no comparable standard written by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for CNG, the usage of this economically incentive fuel is prohibited and as such shy away from it. It is thus imperative that the National Traffic Safety Administration make it very clear to the public where it stands and what its going to do about CNG and its usage. For example: "FMVSS 301-75 does not apply to CNG and does not prevent the usage of CNG. As a standard for CNG usage does not exist/is in the making, all those fuel systems that are manufactured and installed as per the National Fire Protection Agency Standard 52 written for Compressed Natural Gas vehicles would be accepted."

The safety record of Compressed Natural Gas powered vehicles is enviable. The fuel containers used are DOT 3AA high pressure steel cylinders which have an incomparable safety factor attached to them. A recent severe abuse test done on composite reinforced aluminum storage cylinders (Society of Automotive Engineers Conference proceedings P-129, paper 831O68, June 22-23, 1983) only help in emphasizing with authority the superior structural strength and stability of these fuel containers over those containing gasoline and diesel.

A theoretical analysis done by the Los Alamos National Laboratory (Gaseous Fuel Safety Assessment for light duty automotive vehicles-LA-9829-MS) shows that CNG is a far superior fuel from safety perspective, over gasoline and diesel, in both primary hazard and secondary hazard situations.

It is thus an irony that in spite of all these advantages the state level controlling agencies refuse to endorse this most economically viable fuel, all because the NHTSA has not taken a stand on this issue.

Almost all CNG conversions are done on used vehicles and all of them are done on vehicles that are sold without the intention of resale, thus the installers and component manufacturers are not required to go through the recertification process.

Is an alterer who converts a used gasoline powered vehicle so that it is both a gasoline-powered and a CNG-powered vehicle, responsible for recertification according to FMVSS 301-75 and if so what else does he have to meet?

A tamperer from the NHTSA stand point is one who changes components of a fuel system and he is supposedly exempt from the penalties if he does not indulge in the removing, disconnecting or reducing the performance of the already existing equipment. From a structural integrity standpoint the new component; have a safety factor of 4 to 1 and meet and exceed all of the NFPA 52 requirements. As the FMVSS 3O1-75 does not have specs written down for these components it would be beneficial to both parties to accept some norms set down by another Federal Agency which has covered both, component quality and installation procedures.

In conclusion, an indepth study of the CNG conversion process should be done by NHTSA and then necessary standards should be set up. A clear definition of an alterer, tamperer and their liability on working on used vehicles should be spelled out.

I would appreciate your responding to this at the earliest possible date letting me know of any applicable violations. I would also appreciate your making it very clear if NHTSA prohibits the usage of Compressed Natural Gas in passengers vehicles including school buses.

Please find enclosed, a brochure that explains our conversion process. Feel free to get in touch with me if you have any questions.

Thanking you.

Sincerely Yours, Purna R. Saggurti Senior Executive Engineer Research & Development PRS/sa Encl.

ID: 11503WKM

Mr. Jiro Doi
Vice President and General Manager
Mitsubishi Motors America, Inc.
1111 19th Street, NW
Suite 600
Washington, DC 20036

Dear Mr. Doi:

This responds to your letter to me requesting interpretation of paragraph S4.4.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, ADoor locks and door retention components.@ You raised a number of issues that I will discuss below in the order presented.

The latch, hinge, and lock requirements of FMVSS No. 206 were extended to the back doors of passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less, including hatchbacks, station wagons, sport utility vehicles, and passenger vans, by a final rule published in the Federal Register on September 28, 1995 (60 FR 50124) (copy enclosed). S4.4.2 was added to the standard by that final rule and provides:

Each back door system equipped with interior door handles or that leads directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations shall be equipped with a locking mechanism with operating means in both the interior and exterior of the vehicle. When the locking mechanism is engaged, both the inside and outside door handles or other latch release controls shall be inoperative.

Question 1.

You first ask about a vehicle with a back door leading directly into a compartment containing seating accommodations. The back door system on such a vehicle must be equipped with a locking mechanism meeting the location and performance requirements of S4.4.2. Under S4.4.2, engagement of the locking mechanism must make the door handles or other latch release controls inoperative.

You ask whether your understanding is correct that an "interior door handle" means "a handle located directly on the door," and not a back door latch release located next to the driver's seat or front passenger's seat. You believe that a back door release next to the driver's seat need not be inoperative when the locking mechanism is engaged.

You are correct that "interior door handle" means a handle attached directly to the interior side of a vehicle door. The door lock and handle requirements were originally imposed on rear side doors to reduce "inadvertent door openings due to impact upon or movement of the inside or outside door handle" (33 FR 6465, April 27, 1968). The agency reasoned that with the door lock engaged - that is, in the locked position - and the door handles thereby "inoperative" - that is, unable to open the door - unintentional door openings would be reduced. The rule was also intended as a child protection device by preventing the opening of the rear door by movement of the inside rear door handle. It is clear, therefore, that in establishing these requirements, the agency envisioned handles mounted directly onto the door. The agency reaffirmed and relied on that rationale in extending S4.4.2 to back doors (60 FR 50124, 50130).

However, with respect to a back door release mechanism located next to the driver's or the front passenger's seat, S4.4.2 provides that when the back door locking mechanism is engaged, the interior and exterior door handles or other latch release controls must be inoperative. Thus, a remote latch release mechanism located in the front of the vehicle, clearly an "other latch release control," must, like the handles mounted on the doors, also be inoperative when the locking mechanism is engaged.

Question Two.

Your next issue, also involving S4.4.2, asks whether back doors "that lead directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations" would include vehicles in which a passenger would have to climb over the back of the rear seat in order to reach a designated seating position. You state that "leading directly into a compartment" means that the seats are "easily accessible" and if one must climb over the seat back to reach a seating position, the seating position would not be easily accessible.

Your understanding is correct. The agency qualified the back door lock requirements by providing that, unless equipped with a door handle, only a back door "that leads directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations" need comply with S4.4.2. That means a door through which vehicle occupants enter from outside the vehicle directly into a vehicle compartment in which occupant seats are located, or exit the vehicle directly from a compartment in which they have been seated to the outside of the vehicle. That does not include doors leading into a compartment, such as a cargo compartment, in which there are no seating positions and that would require an occupant to climb over the back of a seat in order to reach a seating position.

Question Three. You ask whether a configuration in which half or all of the rear seat is removable would be subject to S4.4.2. Where the seats are removable, as with the vehicle depicted in your enclosed picture, the back door leads into a cargo space and removal of the seats merely extends the cargo space. Thus, unless that back door was equipped with a door handle, it would not need to meet S4.4.2, whether or not the seats were removed.

Question Four. Your final issue refers to the requirement in S4.4.2 that applicable vehicles be equipped with "a locking mechanism with operating means in both the interior and exterior of the vehicle." You believe that a vehicle equipped with an electronic central door lock mechanism operable from the driver's seat or the front passenger seat does not need any other interior door lock operating means. You also believe that an exterior key lock without a handle, such as on a hatchback, suffices as the required exterior operating means.

You are correct on both counts. The requirement in S4.4.1 originates from an identical requirement in S4.1.3, which applies to side door locks. In interpreting S4.1.3, NHTSA stated that a central system that engages all door locks but that is controlled from the front door arm rests constitutes an interior operating means in satisfaction of such requirement (see letter to BMW of North America, Inc., dated October 7, 1993, copy enclosed). Following this interpretation, we conclude that the operating means for the locking mechanism on your vehicle may be operable from the driver=s seat or the front passenger seat. A key-operated lock on the outside of the door would meet the requirement, whether or not equipped with a handle, since all that is required is an "operating means" to engage the lock.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:206 d:4/26/96

ID: 1984-1.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/21/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Talbott Associates Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Terry D. Day, P.E. Talbott Associates Inc. 7 S.E. 97th Avenue Portland, Oregon 97216-2498

Dear Mr. Day:

This responds to your letter to this office asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR S571-208). Specifically, you asked if Standard No. 208 requires that all bus passengers be restrained from ejection in the event of a rollover which is severe enough to destroy the integrity of the passenger compartment. Standard No. 208 specifies that the designated seating position for the driver must offer full automatic protection for the occupant in those circumstances or that the seating position must be equipped with a seat belt assembly that conforms to the requirements of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. No requirements are specified for the other designated seating position on the bus.

Section S4.4 of Standard No. 208 specifies the protection which buses must afford the occupants, and allows the bus to comply with one of two protection requirements. The first option, set forth in section S4.4.1, is for the vehicle to meet the crash protection requirements set forth in section S5 of the standard (which include restraining the occupant from ejection in the event of a rollover) by means that require no action by the vehicle occupant. This requirement, however, must be met only with respect to an anthropomorphic test device in the driver's designated seating position. The second option, as specified in section S4.4.2, is for the vehicle to be equipped with either a Type 1 or a Type 2 seat belt assembly that conforms to Standard No. 209. Again, this option applies only to the driver's designated seating position. Neither of these options sets forth any requirements applicable to any other designated seating position in the bus.

Please feel free to contact me should you have any further questions or need more information on this subject.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

January 10, 1984 TAI File 830203

Legal Counsel, FMVSS 208 NHTSA U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sirs:

I would like the legal interpretation of FMVSS 208, S6.1 as required by S5.3, Rollover. Specifically, my question is,

"Does S6.1 require that all passengers of a chartertype bus, transit bus, or school bus (e.g., multipurpose passenger vehicle with GVWR of more than 10,000 lb.) be restrained from ejection in the event of a rollover which is severe enough to destroy the integrity of the passenger compartment."

I am working on behalf of a bus manufacturing client who is concerned the present "compartmentalization concept" of restraint is insufficient to meet S6.1 under the above conditions. Your response in this matter is appreciated.

Very truly yours,

TALBOTT ASSOCIATES INC.

Terry D. Day, P.E.

TDD/sv

ID: aiam4828

Dear Mr. Holperin: This is in reply to your letter of January 3, l99l to Taylor Vinson of this Office, on behalf of your constitutent LeRoy E. Mueller. Mr. Mueller is a manufacturer of trailers, and is concerned that if he builds certain tilt deck trailers to specifications they will fail to conform to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Specifically, a stationary ramp 'might obscure a clear view of the trailer's tail lights from a 45 degree angle . . . .' You have asked whether his concern 'regarding an obstructed view of the tail light' is a legitimate one. As Mr. Mueller indicates, Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, incorporates by reference SAE Standard J585e, Tail Lamps (Rear Position Lamps), Sept. 1977, which applies to trailers. This standard requires that 'Signal from lamps on both side of the vehicle shall be visible through a horizontal angle from 45 deg. to the left to 45 deg. to the right.' The SAE standard further specifies that 'To be considered visible, the lamp must provide an unobstructed projected illuminated area of outer lens surface, excluding reflex, at least 2 square inches in extent, measured at 45 deg. to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle.' We note that stop lamps and rear turn signal lamps must also meet this requirement. You have enclosed a photocopy of a photograph of the rear of a trailer taken from what we assume represents a 45 degree angle to the left of the horizontal centerline of the trailer. Certain lamps, visible from another photocopy of a picture taken on the centerline, appear to be obscured at the 45 degree angle. Thus, it appears that Mr. Mueller's concern to be a legitimate one. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to determine whether his vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and to ensure that it does before affixing a certification of compliance to it upon completion of its manufacture. If this agency has reason to believe that a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment has been manufactured and/or certified in violation of the Vehicle Safety Act, this agency conducts an investigation and, if appropriate, an enforcement action. However, we would like to point out that if trailer equipment prevents compliance of a required lamp, like a tail lamp, with any of Standard No. 108's requirements, paragraph S5.3.1.1 of the standard permits a manufacturer to install an auxiliary lamp meeting the standard's requirements. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel;