ID: 2846o

Mr. Gary Hackett
State of Nevada Taxi Cab Authority
Suite 200
1785 E. Square
Las Vegas, NV 89155

Dear Mr. Hackett:

This is in further response to your March 28, 1988, telephone conversation with Mr. Steve Wood of my staff in which you asked for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components. Your specific question asked whether Standard No. 206 requires door handles on rear doors of motor vehicles. The answer to your question is no.

The agency addressed the question you raise in a May 10, 1974, letter to Mr. Charles Murphy who asked whether manufacturers selling vehicles to the City of Philadelphia can remove the door handles from the vehicles' rear doors. In response, the agency interpreted Standard No. 206 as not requiring an inside rear door handle. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration stated that the standard's requirements that each passenger car rear door must have a locking mechanism that is operable from within the vehicle and that, when engaged, renders the outside and inside door handles inoperative (S4.1.3) specify the performance required of door locking mechanisms only. The agency thus indicated that the standard sets no requirements for inside rear door handles.

I have enclosed a copy of the Murphy letter for your information. Please feel free to contact my office if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:206 d:4/11/88

ID: 2847o

AIR MAIL

Dipl.-Ing. F. Vapenicek Chief of Machinery Plant Nova Hut Klementa Gottwalda n. p., 707 02 Ostrava 7 CZECHOSLOVAKIA

Dear Mr. Vapenicek:

This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l20, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars. You stated that the dimensions of your rims comply with dimensional specifications of the European Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation. You asked whether disc wheels provided with certain information can be regarded as complying with the requirements of U.S. standards. Your question is responded to below.

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

You provided the following example of your disc wheel marking on the attachment face of the disc:

(b) 8,0-20

(c) DOT-E

(d) symbol of the manufacturer

(e) 6 87

You stated that the information listed in (b) and (d) also appears on every part of your multipiece rim and that height and depth of the marking meets the requirements of S5.2 of Standard No. l20. Section S5.2 states:

. . . each rim or, at the option of the manufacturer in the case of a singlepiece wheel, wheel disc shall be marked with the information listed in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this paragraph . . . . The information listed in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this paragraph shall appear on the weather side. In the case of rims of multipiece construction, the information listed in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this paragraph shall appear on the rim base and the information listed in paragraphs (b) and (d) of this paragraph shall also appear on each other part of the rim.

Your letter indicates that you plan to place your disc wheel marking "on the attachment face of disc." While it is not clear what you mean by the term attachment face of disc, I would like to note several requirements specified by section S5.2 for marking location. First, the marking must be placed on the rim, except that for singlepiece wheels manufacturers have the option of placing the marking on the wheel disc. Thus, assuming that your rim is a multipiece rim, the marking must be placed on the rim rather than the disc. Second, the information listed in paragraphs (a) through (c) must be placed on the weather side. Section S4 provides a definition for the "weather side" of a rim. Third, for multipiece rims, the information listed in paragraphs (a) through (e) must appear on the rim base, and the information listed in paragraphs (b) and (d) must also appear on each other part of the rim. Section S4 provides a definition for "rim base."

Your sample disc wheel marking links by a hyphen the symbol "DOT" required by S5.2(c) and the designation "E" required by S5.2(a). The symbol DOT constitutes a certification by the manufacturer of the rim that the rim complies with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards, while the designation E indicates the source of the rim's published nominal dimensions, i.e., in your case, the European Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation. While NHTSA expects the information provided in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) to be grouped together, we do not recommend linking "DOT" and "E" by a hyphen. These symbols provide two different types of information, and the inclusion of a hyphen could cause confusion.

The information required by S5.2(b) is "(t)he rim size designation, and in the case of multipiece rims, the rim type designation. For example: 20 x 5.50, or 20 x 5.5." Your sample disc wheel marking is 8,0-20. I note first that the rim size designation (defined in S4 as "rim diameter and width") should use the symbol "x" between the width and diameter, as indicated by S5.2(b)'s example. Moreover, for multipiece rims, S5.2(b) requires both the rim size designation and the rim type designation. S4 defines the term "rim type designation" as "the industry or manufacturer's designation for a rim by style or code." If your disc wheel is a multipiece rim, the disc wheel marking should include the rim type designation.

S5.2(c) requires a designation that identifies the manufacturer of the rim by name, trademark, or symbol. Your letter indicates that you plan to use a symbol. I note that, as discussed in an interpretation letter dated February l7, l986 (copy enclosed), 49 CFR Part 55l requires rim manufacturers to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of process in this country. Among other things, the designation of agent must contain information concerning marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the manufacturer's wheels and rims that do not bear its name.

The information in your sample disc wheel marking under (e) is consistent with one of the examples provided in S5.2(e) to indicate the month and year of manufacturer.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:120 d.4/13/88

ID: 2848o

Mr. Parnell Webb
General Manager
River Road Dodge
Rt.3
Ripley, TN 38063

Dear Mr. Webb:

This responds to your letter asking whether the original equipment bed on a half-ton pick-up truck can be taken off and replaced by a local government with a utility body and/or bed. I apologize for the delay in responding. The answer to your question is different, depending on the specific facts of the situation.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) prohibits the sale or introduction into interstate commerce of any new vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that does not conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Safety Act authorizes NHTSA to issue these safety standards (found in 49 CFR Chapter V), and each manufacturer is required to certify that its product(s) meet all applicable safety standards. It is not clear from your letter whether your dealership is proposing to make the modifications for the local government agency or whether the local government agency will itself perform the modifications.

The local government agency can perform whatever modifications it desires to its own vehicles without violating any Federal laws or regulations. This is because neither the Safety Act nor any of our standards and regulations apply to modifications individual vehicle owners make to their own vehicles.

However, if your dealership were to make these modifications, you would be responsible for complying with various provisions of the Safety Act and applicable regulations. The provisions with which you would have to comply would depend on whether you modify the vehicle before it is sold for the first time to the consumer (a new vehicle), or if you make the modifications after it has been sold for the first time to a consumer (a used vehicle). I will address each of these situations separately.

If your dealership intends to perform the described modifications to new vehicles, you would be subject to the following requirements. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits the sale of any new vehicle that does not comply with all applicable safety standards. This means that any vehicle that is modified before being sold for the first time to a consumer must continue to comply with all applicable safety standards after its modifications. In addition to these statutory considerations for modifiers, this agency's certification regulations, set forth in 49 CFR Part 567, apply to any person who changes previously certified vehicles by means other than the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components or minor finishing operations or in such a manner that the weight ratings assigned to the vehicle are no longer valid. Such a person is considered an "alterer" for the purposes of Part 567 (copy enclosed). We consider the removal of a pickup bed and replacement with a utility body and/or bed to be something more than the substitution of readily attachable components or minor finishing operations. Therefore, a person making such a substitution on a new vehicle would be an alterer under Part 567.

In this case, 567.7 requires that:

(1) The alterer supplement the existing manufacturer certification label by affixing an additional label stating that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards as well as stating the firm or individual name of the alterer and the month and the year in which the alterations were completed (see 567.7(a)); (2) The modified values for the vehicle be provided as specified in 567.4(g)(3) and (5), if the gross vehicle weight ratings or any of the gross axle weight ratings of the vehicle as altered are different from those shown on the original certification label (see 567.7(b)); and (3) The type classification be provided, if the vehicle as altered has a different type of classification from that shown on the original certification.

In addition to these certification requirements, an alterer is considered a "manufacturer" for the purposes of notification and remedy of defects or noncompliances under the Safety Act and is subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Reports.

On the other hand, if your dealership proposes to modify used vehicles (already purchased by the consumer), different requirements would apply. Specifically, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business from "knowingly rendering inoperative" any equipment or element of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with our safety standards. In other words, no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business can modify used vehicles by removing or defeating any of the systems or devices that were installed on the vehicle to comply with an applicable safety standard. The modifier in the first instance must determine if the modifications constitute a prohibited "rendering inoperative" violation. However, the agency can reexamine the modifier's determination in the context of an enforcement proceeding. Part 567 does not require modifiers of used vehicles to provide a separate certification label for the modified vehicle.

To help you determine which standards may apply to the modified vehicles and whether the proposed modifications would result in a prohibited "rendering inoperative" violation, I am enclosing a publication entitled "Federal Vehicle Safety Standards and Procedures." This pamphlet indicates which standards apply to which vehicle types. I am also enclosing a general information sheet for new manufacturers that gives a general description of the applicable regulations, and explains how to get copies of those regulations. I hope this information proves helpful. Please contact this agency again if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:VSA#567 d:4/15/88

ID: 2849o

Mr. Bruce Niebrugge
Vice President/General Manager
Mid America Design, Inc.
U.S. Route 45 North
One Mid America Place
Effingham, IL 62401

Dear Mr. Niebrugge:

The Customs Service has asked me to respond directly to your letter complaining about the Customs Service seizure of some spinner hubcaps that your company tried to import into the United States. I understand that Mid America Design, Inc. attempted to import a shipment of "spinner hubcaps" from Taiwan. These spinner hubcaps were seized by the U.S. Customs Service for failing to conform with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 211, Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hubcaps (49 CFR 571.211). You asked why our agency said that your company's imported "spinner hubcaps" do not comply with Standard No. 211, when comparable domestically produced items are permitted to be sold. For the last 20 years, it has been illegal to sell spinner hubcaps in the United States, regardless of where the spinner hubcaps were manufactured.

I have enclosed copies of my May 13, 1987 letter to the Honorable William E. Dannemeyer and my November 13, 1987 letter to Mr. William J. Maloney, your counsel in this matter. In these letters, I reaffirmed our interpretations from the past 20 years stating that spinner hub caps do not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 211, and have not complied with that Standard since it became effective on January 1, 1968. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act [15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)] makes it illegal to "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" any hub caps that do not comply with Standard No. 211 (Emphasis added). Therefore, the U.S. Customs Service was enforcing the law properly when it seized the spinner hubcaps your company sought to import.

You also stated in your letter that spinner hubcaps are currently available in the United States, and enclosed some advertisements offering spinner hubcaps for sale. I would like to thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. We have referred this information to our enforcement staff for appropriate action.

If you have any further questions or need more information on the subject of spinner hubcaps and Standard No. 211, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

cc: Mr. Daniel C. Holland District Director of the Customs Service 909 First Avenue Seattle, Washington 98174

ref:211 d:3/18/88

ID: 2851o

The Honorable Don Montgomery
Senator, Twenty-First District
1218 Main
Sabetha, Kansas 66534-1835

Dear Mr. Montgomery:

Senator Kassebaum has asked me to respond to your February 12, 1988 letter to her. In your letter, you expressed concerns about a problem that has arisen in connection with using "van type buses designed to carry 10 or less passengers, without meeting all the requirements of a school bus." You state that there is a problem with using these vehicles to transport students because "federal law classifies the vans by weight and calls them twelve passenger vehicles, which calls for the van to meet all school bus regulations." As a solution, you suggest a change in Federal law might be appropriate to exempt the vehicles you describe "from the weight classification in determining how many passengers they would be capable of carrying."

As I understand your letter, there appears to be a misunderstanding about how Federal law operates with respect to school buses. There may also be a misunderstanding about whether it is a Federal or state definition that determines which vehicles may be used to transport school children in Kansas.

Under Federal regulations, there is no vehicle classification called "van." Instead, a passenger van is classified as either a "multipurpose passenger vehicle" (MPV) or a "bus," depending primarily upon its seating capacity. An MPV is a motor vehicle designed to carry a driver and 9 or fewer passengers, and either constructed on a truck chassis or equipped with features for off-road operation. A bus is a motor vehicle designed to carry a driver and 10 or more passengers.

Given these definitions, a van with 9 or fewer designated seating positions for passengers cannot, regardless of its weight or gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR), be a bus within the meaning of Federal law and regulation. (GVWR is the manufacturer's determination of a vehicle's loaded weight, i.e., the weight of the vehicle plus its designed capacity to carry people and cargo.) On the other hand, if a van is manufactured with 12 or 15 designated seating positions as you stated, then the vehicle is a bus. The number of passengers that such a van may actually carry on any given trip does not affect its classification as a bus.

If that vehicle is manufactured and sold to carry school children, then the vehicle is not just a bus, but a school bus. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and regulations issued thereunder define a school bus in terms of (1) the vehicle's designed capacity for carrying people, and (2) the vehicle's intended use. More specifically, a school bus is a motor vehicle designed for carrying a driver and 10 or more passengers, and sold for transporting students to and from school or school-related events.

Gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) is used in some safety standards to differentiate between smaller and larger school buses in the application of those standards. For example, Safety Standard No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection, specifies one set of requirements for school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less and another for those with a GVWR of greater than 10,000 pounds.

NHTSA's definition of school bus is used by the agency in regulating the manufacture and sale of new vehicles. New vehicles which are classified as school buses must meet the FMVSSs for school buses. A school bus manufacturer must certify that its vehicles meet all applicable Federal safety standards, and a commercial seller must sell only a complying vehicle as a school bus. Thus, a dealer who has a 12 or 15 passenger van that has not been certified as complying with the Federal school bus safety standards and sells that vehicle to a school district has, in all likelihood, violated the statutory prohibition against the sale of a noncomplying vehicle. (Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 571 contains the Federal safety standards applicable to school buses and other vehicles.)

However, this agency can not regulate the purchase or use of a vehicle, and consequently can not require a school district to purchase or use only those vehicles that comply with the Federal school bus safety standards. A State may do so by adopting appropriate vehicle definitions and requirements. To determine whether a local Kansas school district may purchase or use a noncomplying vehicle as a school bus, you must look to the laws of the State of Kansas, not the Federal laws and regulations.

On the other hand, I must emphasize NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students, and encourage you to give this your most careful consideration.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Joan Tilghman of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

cc: The Honorable Nancy Landon Kassebaum United States Senator Washington, DC 20515

ref:VSA#102#571 d:4/15/88

ID: 2852o

Mr. James T. Street
President
Street Specialty Products, Inc.
871 North Hanover Street
Pottstown, PA 19464

Dear Mr. Street:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 211, Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hub Caps (49 CFR 571.211). Specifically, you sent me some product sheets showing several different designs of "spinner" hub caps, and asked whether you can market these items at both the wholesale and retail levels. The answer is no.

I have enclosed copies of my May 13, 1987, letter to the Honorable William E. Dannemeyer and my November 13, 1987, letter to Mr. William J. Maloney. In these letters, I reaffirmed our past interpretations stating that spinner hub caps do not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 211, and have not complied with that Standard since it became effective on January 1, 1968. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act [15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)] makes it illegal to "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" any hub caps that do not comply with Standard No. 211 (Emphasis added). We would consider each sale or offer for sale of spinner hub caps to be a separate violation of this statutory provision. Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each violation of section 108(a), up to a maximum of $800,000.

I appreciate your efforts to ensure that your company does business in a way that complies with all our requirements. If you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:211 d:3/l8/88

ID: 2852yy

Mr. William A. Batten
Eaton Corporation
Truck Components Operations
P.O. Box 4013
Kalamazoo, MI 49003

Dear Mr. Batten:

This responds to your letter and telephone conversation with Ms. Fujita of my staff concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems. You asked about the standard's "applicable mileage requirement or time domain" for a truck with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 10,000 pounds. You informed Ms. Fujita that, stated differently, your question is whether NHTSA requires a used vehicle to continue to meet an FMVSS, and if the answer is yes, for what mileage or amount of time the vehicle must meet the standard.

Generally speaking, the answer is no. NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act requires a vehicle to comply with applicable FMVSS's until its first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale.

However, you should be aware that manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses modifying a vehicle (new or used) are prohibited by section l08(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. Thus, in the context of Standard No. l24, a person in the aforementioned categories is prohibited from rendering inoperative an accelerator control system that has been installed in compliance with that standard.

In addition, if the in-use deterioration of the performance of a vehicle or one of its components creates a safety risk, it could constitute a safety-related defect. Pursuant to sections l5l-l54 of the Safety Act, manufacturers are required to notify NHTSA and owners of such safety-related defects and to remedy such defects without charge. Thus, if the accelerator control systems on your vehicles deteriorate such that they no longer would comply with Standard No l24 and create an unsafe situation, that could be the basis for a defect determination, even though the vehicles met all applicable safety standards when they were new.

I also note that our sister agency in the Department, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), has operational and equipment requirements for trucks used in interstate commerce. If you are interested in that agency's requirements, you can write to them at the following address:

Office of Motor Carrier Standards Federal Highway Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

/ref:124#VSA d:3/4/9l

ID: 2853o

Mr. Leon Steenbock
Administrative Manager, Engineering
FWD Corporation
Clintonville, WI 54929-1590

Dear Mr. Steenbock,

This letter responds to your letter of last year asking whether it is permissible under Federal motor vehicle safety standard 124, Accelerator Control Systems (Standard 124), to install a locking hand throttle control in a new motor vehicle. I apologize for the delay in this response. The answer to your question is no.

While you do not describe what you mean by a "locking hand-throttle control" in your letter, I understood you to mean the following. Some vehicle design configurations have a hand-operated device on the steering column that connects to the throttle lever. In most design configurations, a driver may operate this device either by a turning or push-pull action. This device is commonly referred to as a "hand-throttle control."

These hand-throttle controls have two common applications. First, vehicles designed to be operated by physically disabled persons sometimes use a hand-throttle, rather than a foot-pedal, as the means for applying the actuating force that regulates the throttle valves and vehicle acceleration. Second, on some commercial vehicles, a hand-throttle control can be part of a system that allows a driver to use a hand control to regulate the engine fuel supply, and so to operate a power-driven accessory such as a generator while the vehicle is stationary with the transmission out of "drive." While the intended use of a hand-throttle control in a commercial vehicle may be only to power such an accessory, a driver still could use the throttle to control vehicle acceleration. Nothing in Standard 124 prohibits a manufacturer from installing a hand-throttle control in its vehicles.

Some hand-throttle controls have a mechanism that permits the driver to lock the throttle valves open in a position other than idle even after the driver removes the actuating force. When you asked about "locking hand-throttle controls," I understood you to be referring to this type of design.

These "locking hand throttle controls" are expressly prohibited by Standard 124. Paragraph S5.1 of that Standard requires that the throttle valves must be capable of returning to the idle position whenever the driver removes the actuating force. The purpose of Standard 124 is to minimize the risk of accident due to engine runaway. (37 FR 7097, April 8, 1972.) Consequently, a locking hand-throttle control would increase the risk of the very harm Standard 124 was adopted to address.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Joan Tilghman of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:124#571 d:3/17/88

ID: 2853yy

Lennard S. Loewentritt, Esq.
Deputy Associate General Counsel
Personal Property Division
General Services Administration
Washington, D.C. 20405

Dear Mr. Loewentritt:

This responds to your November 7, 1990 letter requesting further clarification with regard to my August 23, 1990 letter to you. 49 CFR 571.7(c) provides that Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply "to a vehicle or item of equipment manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications." In my August letter, I stated that school buses purchased by the General Services Administration (GSA) for the sole use of the Army would be considered to fall within this exception. This interpretation was based on the assumption that GSA acts as a purchasing agent for the Army, and that the buses were actually sold to the Army, albeit indirectly.

In your recent letter, you stated that this assumption was erroneous. While GSA's Automotive Center does act as a purchasing agent for some agencies, the vehicles in question would be purchased for the GSA's Interagency Fleet Management System (IFMS). Vehicles in the IFMS "are assigned on an indefinite basis to agencies that have had their fleets consolidated into the IFMS." You stated that the Army has consolidated their nontactical vehicles into the IFMS.

In this case then, the GSA would be purchasing buses which are intended for "indefinite assignment to and sole use by the Army for the purpose of transporting troops as well as transporting military dependents to and from school." You stated that these vehicles would be manufactured in conformity with contractual specifications "which reflect the requirements of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for buses rather than school bus specifications." Given this clarification of GSA's role, you again asked if these buses would fall within the exception in 49 CFR 571.7(c).

The answer to your question would be yes, if the purchase contract specifies that the buses should not be certified as school buses in order to serve the needs of the Armed Forces. In these circumstances, we see no meaningful difference between a sale directly to an element of the Armed Forces and a sale to GSA's IFMS intended for exclusive and indefinite assignment to the Army. In announcing this conclusion, I want to make several points. In the interest of safety, I strongly recommend that the contract specify compliance with the substantive provisions of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards relating to school buses, except insofar as they are actually inconsistent with the intended use of the bus. Also, if reassignment of these buses to another agency is ever contemplated, I would appreciate your undertaking to ensure that they would only be used for transporting adults.

I hope this response is helpful. Please let me know if you have any further questions or need any additional information.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:57l d:2/26/9l

ID: 2854o

Mr. Robert A. Rogers
Director, Automotive Safety Engineering
General Motors Corporation
General Motors Technical Center
30400 Mound Road
Warren, MI 48090-9015

Dear Mr. Rogers:

This responds to your recent letter seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR 571.209). Specifically, you stated that you believe that Standard No. 209 does not specifically address remotely actuated emergency-locking retractors. You explained that you were referring to retractors that are actuated by a deceleration sensor that is located some distance from the retractor itself. You stated that the existing uncertainty discourages vehicle manufacturers from considering the introduction of this technology. Additionally, your letter claims that it is not clear whether the test procedures in Standard No. 209 are compatible with remote sensors. NHTSA does not agree that there are existing uncertainties with respect to the applicability of Standard No. 209 to remotely actuated retractors.

The agency first addressed this issue many years back. In a letter to Mr. Nakajima of Toyota, dated March 16, 1973 (copy enclosed), NHTSA explained that Standard No. 209 does address the issue of remotely actuated retractors. In that letter, we explained that both the remotely located sensor(s) and the individual solenoids, or other actuating devices on the retractor mechanism itself, would be considered seat belt assembly hardware for the purposes of Standard No. 209. All assembly hardware must be certified as complying with the requirements of S4.3 of Standard No. 209, including corrosion resistance and temperature resistance. This 1973 letter is still an accurate expression of the agency's opinion on this subject. Accordingly, there is no need to initiate rulemaking for Standard No. 209 to "ensure compatibility with the remotely actuated retractor concept."

If you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:209 d:3/21/88