ID: nht89-1.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/30/89

FROM: MAUREEN ANDREWS

TO: ROBERT C. SMITH -- CONGRESS

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/24/89 FROM DIANE K. STEED -- NHTSA TO ROBERT C. SMITH, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 222; LETTER FROM ROBERT C. SMITH TO SAMUEL K. SKINNER, DATED 02/28/89

TEXT: Dear Congressman Smith,

I am writing to you because I am concerned about the safety of children while they are on the school bus. I would like to find out if anything is being done to make it a requirement to have seat belts on the school bus.

As you may know, last week a 15 year old boy was killed on a school bus in Manchester. That is such a tragic loss of life. Maybe if there was some kind of a monitoring system that could alert the driver that someone's seat belt wasn't fastened, then perhaps we could avoid such awful tragedies in the future.

It would be hard for some children to get use to wearing the seat belts, but if it was a requirement, they would eventually get use to it. A lot of children are already use to wearing seat belts when they get in their own cars -- why not the school b us also?

Another concern I have is the number of children allowed to sit per seat. I have been told that in Derry they are allowed to sit three students per seat. Many times my son comes home and tells me how he has to sit on the edge of his seat because ther e isn't enough room (or because the girls push him off). If some of the children are not sitting correctly in their seat, then there will be more serious injuries or deaths in the future especially if the driver has to make a sudden stop or swirve out o f someone's way.

I am really worried about the safety of children on the school bus. Would you let me know if anything is being done to correct this problem?

Could you also tell me just how a parent can go about finding out what parents rights are where the school system is concerned?

Thank you for any help you can give me.

ID: nht89-1.90

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: May 16, 1989

FROM: Billy Mohr -- Commander, Support Section, Motor Carrier Division, Michigan Department of State Police

TO: Donald W. Vierimaa -- Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/1/94 from John Womack to Donald W. Vierimaa (VSA S103(a)), letter dated 8/9/93 from Donald W. Vierimaa to John Womack, and letter dated 5/12/89 from Donald W. Vierimaa to Billy Mohr

TEXT:

I have reviewed the S. 108 DOT interpretations you have provided. The 53 foot trailers have been allowed in Michigan for several years. The Michigan Legislature was specific in its requirements for use of trailers over 50 feet in length. The requirements are those recommended by the University of Michigan, Transportation Research Institute. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has not notified the State of Michigan that the requirement of an additional "clearance lamp" as near to the top of the semitrailer as practicable is preempted by Section 103 (d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. Be advised that the lamp is not a marker lamp as mentioned in 1.7 of the DOT interpretations.

The statute that covers height, length and underride protection is within the Motor Vehicle Code, Act. 300 P.A. 1949 as amended. I cannot provide you with a copy of the Michigan Motor Vehicle Code, as it must be purchased from the Michigan Department of State. However I am including Section 719 as a part of this letter. Section 719 is as follows:

"Sec. 719. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a vehicle unloaded or with load shall not exceed a height of 13 feet 6 inches. The owner of a vehicle which collides with a lawfully established bridge or viaduct shall be liable for all damage and injury resulting from a collision caused by the height of the vehicle, whether the clearance of the bridge or viaduct is posted or not.

(2) A truck, truck tractor, semitrailer, or trailer manufactured on or after July 27, 1978, shall not be used to transport flammable liquids, in bulk, having a flash point at or below 70 degrees Fahrenheit, if the truck, truck tractor, semitrailer, or trailer exceeds 11 feet 8-1/2 inches in height. However, safety equipment and those appurtenances which are required by state law, when added to a vehicle, may cause the vehicle height to exceed 11 feet 8-1/2 inches, but shall not cause the vehicle height to exceed 13 feet 6 inches. A person who violates this subsection is guilty of a misdemeanor.

(3) A vehicle, except a truck tractor, trailer, or semitrailer, including load, or articulated buses operated by a local public transit system funded by Act No. 51 of the public Acts of 1951, being Sections 247.651 to 247.674 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, shall not exceed a total length of 40 feet. The total length of a semitrailer operating in a truck tractor and semitrailer combination shall not exceed 53 feet, including load. All

semitrailers longer than 50 feet shall have a wheelbase of 40.5 feet plus or minus 0.5 feet, measured from the kingpin coupling to the center of the rear axles or to the center of the tandem axle assembly if equipped with 2 axles. Articulated buses operated by a local public transit system funded by Act No. 51 of the Public Acts of 1951 may operate with a maximum length of 65 feet. A combination of truck tractor, semitrailer, and trailer, or truck and semitrailer or trailer, or a combination of truck tractor and 2 semitrailers, including load, shall not exceed a total overall length of 59 feet except as provided for on routes designated and approved by the state transportation department and by local authorities with respect to highways under their jurisdiction on which a person may operate a combination of a truck tractor, semitrailer, and trailer or a truck tractor and 2 semitrailers with no limit on the overall combination length, if the length of each semitrailer or trailer including load does not exceed 28-1/2 feet. The state transportation department and local authorities with respect to highways under their jurisdiction may designate highways where the overall length of a truck and trailer or semitrailer shall not exceed 65 feet. A truck tractor and semitrailer combination with a semitrailer length longer than 50 feet shall not be allowed to operate with more than 2 axles on the semitrailer. All truck tractor and semitrailer combinations with a semitrailer length longer than 50 feet shall travel exclusively on highways designated by the appropriate road authority. City, village, or county authorities shall have the option of prohibiting stops within their jurisdictions unless the stop occurs along appropriately designated routes, or is necessary for emergency purposes or to reach shippers, receivers, warehouses, and terminals along designated routes. A trailer or semitrailer in actual and lawful use in this state on December 1, 1982, may be operated in this state for the life of the vehicle in a combination with other vehicles in actual and lawful use in this state on December 1, 1982, if the combination was of legal length under the law of this state immediately preceding January 24, 1984. In calculating the length of a trailer or semitrailer under this subsection, the length shall be based on the cargo carrying portion of the vehicle only, including load. A truck tractor or other motor vehicle shall not haul more than 1 trailer and 1 semitrailer or more than 2 semitrailers in combination at any 1 time, except that a farm tractor may haul 2 wagons or trailers or garbage and refuse haulers may, during daylight hours, haul up to 4 trailers for garbage and refuse collection purposes, not exceeding in any combination a total length of 55 feet at a speed of not to exceed 15 miles per hour. In determining the length of a vehicle or a vehicle combination under this subsection, the length shall not be considered to include safety and energy conservation devices including, but not be limited to, impact absorbing bumpers, rear view mirrors, turn signals lamps, marker lamps, steps and hand holds for entry and egress, flexible fender extensions, mud flaps, or splash and spray suppressant devices; load induced tire bulge; refrigeration or heating units; or air compressors. A device shall be excluded from a determination of length only if it is not designed or used for the carrying of cargo.

(4) If a combination of 2 semitrailers is pulled by a truck or truck tractor, a fifth wheel connecting assembly which conforms with motor carrier safety rules promulgated by the department of state police pursuant to the motor carrier safety act of 1963, Act No. 181 of the Public Acts of 1963, as amended, being sections 480.11 to 480.21 of the

Michigan Compiled Laws, shall be used on each semitrailer.

(5) A train of vehicles or a vehicle operated alone shall not carry a load extending more than 3 feet beyond the front of the train of vehicles or vehicle.

(6) A motor vehicle, trailer, or semitrailer whose frame or body extends more than 36 inches beyond the rear of its rear axle and is more than 30 inches above the roadway shall not be operated on the highways of this state unless equipped with a fender or bumper on the extreme rear of the frame or body. The bumper shall extend downward from the rear of the frame or body to within 30 inches of the roadway and be of substantial construction. In addition to the requirements of subsection (7), no vehicle which is required by federal law to have an underride guard of not more than 22 inches above the roadway shall be operated upon the highways of this state without such an underride guard.

(7) A truck tractor and semitrailer combination with a semitrailer length longer than 50 feet whose frame or body extends more than 36 inches beyond the rear of its rear axle and is more than 30 inches above the roadway shall not be operated on the highways of this state unless equipped with an underride guard on the extreme rear of the frame or body. The underride guard shall meet all of the following requirements:

(a) Provide a continuous horizontal beam having a maximum ground clearance of 22 inches, as measured with the vehicle empty and on level ground.

(b) Extend to within 4 inches of the lateral extremities of the trailer on both left and right sides.

(8) A truck tractor and semitrailer combination with a semitrailer length longer than 50 feet shall not be operated on the highways of this state at the times specified in section 684 unless equipped with all of the following lamps and reflectors, in addition to any other lamps and reflectors required under this act:

(a) Two side marker lamps which display an amber light, 1 on each side of the semitrailer, located at 1/2 the distance from the front to the rear of the semitrailer.

(b) Two reflectors which reflect an amber light, 1 on each side of the semitrailer, located at 1/2 the distance from the front to the rear of the semitrailer.

(c) Two clearance lamps, 1 on each side of the semitrailer, located at 1/2 the distance from the front to the rear and as near to the top of the semitrailer as practicable.

(9) A lamp required under subsection (8) shall be lighted at the times specified in section 684 and shall be visible when lighted at a distance of 500 feet from the side of the semitrailer on which it is mounted. A reflector required under subsection (8) shall be visible at the times specified in section 684 from all distances from 50 to 500 feet from the semitrailer when directly in front of lawful upper beams of headlamps.

(10) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, a person may operate a combination of truck tractor, semitrailer, and trailer, or truck tractor and semitrailer or trailer designed and used exclusively to transport assembled motor vehicles or bodies, recreational vehicles, or boats, which does not exceed a total length of 65 feet. The load on the combination of vehicles may extend an additional 3 feet beyond the front and 4 feet beyond the rear of the combination of vehicles. Retractable extensions used to support and secure the load that do not extend beyond the allowable overhang for the front and rear shall not be included in determining the length of a loaded vehicle or combination of vehicles.

(11) A combination of vehicles shall not have more than 11 axles.

(12) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, a number of motor vehicles, wholly or partially assembled, may be transported over the highways of this state in combination, utilizing 1 tow bar or 3 saddle mounts with full mount mechanisms and utilizing the motive power of 1 of the vehicles in combination. The combination shall not exceed the maximum length of 65 feet for the transportation of assembled motor vehicles, and the vehicles in the combination shall be adequately and securely fastened together in compliance with regulations of the state and of any federal agency having jurisdiction over the transportation. If motor vehicles are towed by means of triple saddle mounts, the towed vehicles shall have brakes acting on all wheels which are in contact with the roadway. A combination exceeding 55 feet in length may be operated only on highways and routes approved and designated for that operation by the state transportation department and by local authorities with respect to highways under their jurisdiction.

(13) The total gross weight of a truck tractor, semitrailer, and trailer combination or a truck tractor and 2 semitrailers combination which exceeds 59 feet in length shall not exceed a ratio of 400 pounds per engine net horsepower delivered to clutch or its equivalent specified in the SAE handbook published by the society of automotive engineers, inc., (1977).

(14) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person who violates this section is responsible for a civil infraction. The owner of the vehicle may be charged with a violation of this section."

Your diagrams of trailers with pin setting measurements, marker lamps and underride protection is correct. However I want to point out that I cannot visualize a semitrailer such as you have on pages 4 and 5 where there would be less than 36 inches from the rear of the last axle to the rear of the semitrailer. There would be more than 9 feet from the pin to the front of the semitrailer.

If I can be of any further assistance regarding this matter, please contact me at 517/373-4910.

ID: nht89-1.91

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/18/89

FROM: BOB SANDBLOM -- BOOKLAND PRESIDENT

TO: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/19/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO BOB SANDBLOM; REDBOOK A33 [B]; STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 09/03/87 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO DAVID M. ROMANSKY; STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Department of Transportation-

I thought you might want to know about a disturbing trend I have noticed in the Phoenix area and suspect exists across the country. Car dealers are putting their name and logo on the red lens of the high mounted brake light inside the rear window. Not only is this a nuisance for the car buyer to get rid of but the black letters and logo can take up more than half of the light producing area.

Surely it is not legal for a car dealer to defeat this federally mandated safety feature any more than it would be legal for them to remove a car's seat belts before offering it for sale. I have seen several different dealers' names in the lights but th e one I remember from seeing the most recently is Pitre Buick of Scottsdale.

Just thought you would like to know.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-1.92

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/22/89

FROM: H. HASEGAWA -- AUTOMOTIVE LIGHTING ENGINEERING CONTROL SECT. STANLEY ELECTRIC CO LTD

TO: RICHARD L. VAN IDERSTINE -- SAFETY STANDARDS ENGINEER U.S. DOT, NHTSA OFFICE OF VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

TITLE: REVISION OF FMVSS NO. 108 (DOCKET NO. 85-15 NOTICE 8)

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/19/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO HASEGAWA; REDBOOK A33 [3]; STANDARD 108; DOCKET 85-15 NOTICE 8

TEXT: Dear Mr. Van Iderstine,

We appreciate very much for your kind cooperation during our stay in the U.S. for SAE Lighting Commity Meeting.

We have two questions on Revision of FMVSS No. 108 (Docket No. 85-15 Notice 8) which was finally issued on Federal Register of May 9, 1989.

- Question -

1. Please advice us the effective date of the requirement of S7.7.5.1 a). We suppose that S7.7.5.1 will be applied to the all headlamp with external aiming system (including replaceable bulb type headlamp).

However, this requirement was not applied for replaceable bulb type headlamp by previous FMVSS No. 108.

Therefore, we think that addition of new requirement need longer interval of effectiveness.

2. The requirement of S7.7.5.1 b) used quote SAE J580b "Sealed Beam Headlamp Assembly" by previous FMVSS No. 108 and the expression is little bit different from new S7.7.5.1 b).

Please advice us that the requirement of "0.1 in. max." will be determined, either during the test or after the test?

We would like to have your advice by facsimile.

Our facsimile number is 03-792-0007 (JAPAN).

Sincerely yours,

ID: nht89-1.93

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/23/89

FROM: LARRY P. EGLEY

TO: KATHLEEN DEMETER -- ASST. CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/09/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO LARRY P. EGLEY; REDBOOK A33[2]; STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 01/17/89 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA; OCC 3028; LETTER DATED 09/10/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO KATH LEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA; OCC 2530; REPORT DATED 09/20/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY, REQUEST FOR EVALUATION / INTERPRETATION OF PROPOSED INVENTION SUDDEN STOP FLASHER [SSF]; REPORT DATED 09/07/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY, AN APPEAL FOR VARIANT INTERPRETATION OF NHTSA STANDARDS AS THEY RELATE TO BRAKE LIGHTS AND THE SUDDEN STOP FLASHER [SSF]; LETTER DATED 07/13/88 FROM KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA TO LARRY P. EGLEY; LETTER DATED 06/23/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO RALPH HITCHCOCK -- NHTSA; OCC 2256; LETTER DATED 06/20/88 FRO M LEWIS S. BUCHANAN -- EPA TO LARRY P. EGLEY; OCC 2199; LETTER DATED 06/09/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO LEWIS BUCHANAN

TEXT: Dear Ms DeMeter:

On January 17, 1989, I requested a status report on an invention for which I requested an evaluation. I have received no reply from you. As you see by the attached letter, I cleared this device for evaluation on September 10, 1988.

I would appreciate the courtesy of a reply.

Thank you.

Encl: My letter dated January 17, 1989

ID: nht89-1.94

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/25/89

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

TO: HARRY REID -- UNITED STATES SENATE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 03/08/89 FROM PATRICIA KLINGER WATHEN -- DOT TO HARRY REID -- SENATE; LETTER DATED 02/23/89 FROM HARRY REID -- SENATE TO DOT; LETTER DATED 02/03/89 FROM STEVEN P. ELLIOTT TO HARRY REID -- SENATE, RE AUTHORIZATION TO DISCONNECT AUTO MOBILE AIR BAGS; REPORT FROM DAVID J. ROMEO AND JOHN B. MORRIS, DRIVER AIR BAG POLICE FLEET DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM A 24 MONTH PROGRESS REPORT AT EXPERIMENTAL SAFETY VEHICLE CONFERENCE OXFORD, ENGLAND, JULY 1-5, 1985; RESEARCH NOTES ON, CRASH EXPERIENCE OF GOVERNMENT SPONSORED AIR BAG VEHICLES THROUGH 03/31/89, FROM VERNON ROBERTS

TEXT: Dear Senator Reid:

Thank you for your letter to the Department of Transportation, on behalf of the City of Sparks, Nevada. That city's police department has received six new patrol cars equipped with air bags. According to the City Attorney for Sparks, the city police ca rs are often required to push disabled vehicles out of travel lanes of highways and the police officers are afraid that the air bags will be activated during these pushing operations. You asked if the Department of Transportation would authorize the Spa rks police department to disconnect the air bags on its patrol cars. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations to you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to issue Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR S 571.208). Standard No. 208 requires all 1990 model year cars to be equipped with automatic crash protection, and specified percentages of each manufacturer's 1987, 1988, and 1989 model year cars to be so equipped. Chrysler, the manufacturer of the patrol cars in question, has chosen to comply with the requirement for automatic crash protection by installing air bags in these police cars.

When a safety standard like Standard No. 208 is in effect and applicable to new passenger cars, the Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing, selling or offering for sale, importing, or introducing in interstate commerce any new car that does n ot comply with the safety standard. However, the Safety Act provides that these prohibitions do not apply after the first purchase of the car "in good faith for purposes other than resale." Hence, the Federal requirement that the cars comply with all ap plicable safety standards ceased to apply when the Sparks city police department purchased these cars, since the police department bought these cars in good faith to use them as police patrol cars, not to resell them.

After the first purchase of a car in good faith for purposes other than resale, the Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in the car in compli ance with an applicable safety standard. Obviously, disconnecting air bag systems would have that effect. Accordingly, Federal law prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair shop from disconnecting the air bag systems on the Sparks poli ce department cars.

Please note that the Safety Act does not prohibit individual vehicle owners from rendering inoperative safety features on their own vehicles. Hence, the City of Sparks does not need any sort of "authorization" from this agency to disconnect the air bag systems on the city's police cars. The City of Sparks is permitted to disconnect the air bags on its own vehicles without violating any Federal law, just as any resident of Sparks can remove any safety equipment they like from their own vehicles without violating Federal law. Such removals may, however, violate the laws of the State of Nevada.

I recommend that the city carefully consider the effects of disconnecting the air bag systems in its police cars, even though Federal law does not prohibit the city from doing so. The air bags in those cars are an effective means of protecting vehicle o ccupants in frontal crashes. As to the possibility of inadvertent deployment of air bags in police cars, I note that the agency has entered into a contract under which police cars have been retrofitted with air bag systems, without a single reported ins tance of an air bag detonation while pushing a disabled vehicle. Enclosed is a report with some additional information on this contract. Particularly since the City of Sparks police officers face the possibility of becoming involved in high speed pursu it situations, we believe those police officers deserve the benefits of automatic crash protection in their police cars.

I hope this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ID: nht89-1.95

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/05/89

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

TO: Anonymous (confidential)

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 03/09/89 TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATIONS OF FMVSS 203 AND 210; NON CONFIDENTIAL VERSION

TEXT: Dear

Thank you for your letter requesting interpretations of how Standards No. 203, Impact Protection for the Driver from the Steering Control System (49 CFR @ 571.203) and 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages (49 CFR @571.210) apply to a vehicle in which the d river's seating position is equipped with both an air bag and an automatic safety belt. We have concluded that the vehicles described in your letter appear not to be subject to the requirements of Standard No. 203, based on your representation that the driver's position in those vehicles would comply with the occupant protection criteria in section S5.1 of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR @571.208) by means of the air bag alone. Further, if the manufacturer certifies that the driver' s position in those vehicles would comply with the occupant protection criteria in section S5.1 of Standard No. 208 with the automatic safety belts in place, the anchorages for the automatic belts would be exempted from the anchorage location requirement s in Standard No. 210. These conclusions are explained below.

Before discussing the substantive issues raised in your letter, I would like to respond to your request that NHTSA not publicly release the identities of the vehicle manufacturer or its counsel because the development of vehicles with both air bags and a utomatic safety belts "is competitively sensitive." We hereby grant your request. You provided us with a version of your letter deleting all references to the identity of the manufacturer and its counsel. We will make available to the public your purge d version of your letter to us and a version of this letter purged of all references to your identity.

Standard No. 203

With respect to Standard No. 203, section S2 of Standard No. 203 provides that the standard "does not apply to vehicles that conform to the frontal barrier crash requirements (S5.1) of Standard No. 208 by means of other than seat belt assemblies." The fi rst question is whether S2 exempts from Standard No. 203 those vehicles whose driver's seating position

2 conforms to the frontal barrier crash requirements by means other than belt assemblies, or whether S2 only exempts from Standard No. 203 those vehicles in which both the driver's position and the right front outboard seating position conform to the fro ntal barrier crash requirements by means other than belt assemblies. After examining the history and purpose of this requirement, we have concluded that vehicles are not subject to Standard No. 203 if the driver's seating position offers the specified o ccupant protection, for the following reasons.

The title of Standard No. 203 explicitly states that it is intended to provide protection for the driver, not for any other vehicle occupants. Moreover, section S2 of Standard No. 203 was promulgated after NHTSA determined that compliance with the requi rements of Standard No. 203 could impede the development and installation of a more advanced occupant protection system, such as air bags, at the driver's position. See 40 FR 17992; April 24, 1975. This determination would not apply with respect to any seating positions other than the driver's position, because compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 203 would have no positive or negative effects on the development and installation of occupant protection systems at any other seating positions . Given the history and purpose of Standard No. 203 in general and section S2 in particular, section S2 must be interpreted so that Standard No. 203 does not apply to vehicles whose driver's seating position offers the specified occupant protection.

Having determined that one examines only the driver's seating position to see whether a vehicle is exempt from the requirements of Standard No. 203 by virtue of the provision in section S2 of the standard, we must now determine whether a vehicle whose dr iver's seating position is equipped with both an air bag and an automatic safety belt can be said to conform to S5.1 of Standard No. 208 by means other than seat belt assemblies. We conclude that it can if the manufacturer certifies that the driver's se ating position conforms with S5.1 of Standard No. 208 by means of the air bag alone.

If the manufacturer certifies that the air bag alone provides the specified occupant protection at the driver's seating position, then, for purposes of S5.1 of Standard No. 208, the installation of the automatic safety belt would be a voluntary action by the vehicle manufacturer. The agency has long stated that manufacturers are free to install systems or components in addition to the required safety systems or components, provided that the additional systems do not destroy the ability of the required systems to comply with the applicable safety standards. Therefore, if a manufacturer certifies that an air bag alone provides the specified occupant protection at the driver's seating position, an automatic safety belt at that seating position would be a safety system installed in addition to the air bag system. The only limitation on the installation of automatic safety belts at such seating positions would be that the combination of the automatic safety belt and the air bag must comply with the requ irements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208. If a manufacturer certifies that the driver's seating position in a vehicle complies with S5.1 of Standard No. 208 by means of an air bag alone, that vehicle would be exempt from Standard No. 203 even if an automati c safety belt system were also provided for the driver's seating position.

3

If the manufacturer cannot certify that the driver's seating position complies with the requirements of S5.1 by means of the air bag alone, then both the air bag and the automatic safety belt are necessary to provide the required level of occupant protec tion. In this case, the vehicle would be subject to Standard No. 203, because it relies on a seat belt system to conform with the requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208.

Standard No. 210 Section S4.3 of Standard No. 210 provides that: "Anchorages for automatic and for dynamically tested seat belt assemblies that meet the frontal crash protection requirement of S5.1 of Standard No. 208 (49 CFR @571.208) are exempt from the location requir ements of this section." This exemption is premised on the agency's conclusion that the anchorage location requirements are unnecessary when the same aspects of performance are indirectly tested in dynamic testing. See 50 FR 14589, at 14595; April 12, 19 85. That is, the anchorage location requirements are an indirect means of ensuring that a belt system will afford adequate protection to a user in a crash. The dynamic testing requirements directly measure the protection the belt system offers belt use rs in a frontal crash.

Your letter referred to a March 14, 1988 letter we sent to Mr. Karl-Heinz Faber. In his letter, Mr. Faber asked whether standard equipment items in the vehicle would be operational during compliance testing. We responded in part as follows:

During its compliance testing, NHTSA combines a test of the occupant crash protection capabilities of automatic or manual safety belts with testing done to determine compliance with other standards. . . . In conducting these compliance tests, NHTSA t ests vehicles in their "as delivered" form with all items of standard equipment present in the vehicle. Thus, if a vehicle has devices, such as an air bag system or pre-tensioning devices for the belts, installed in the vehicle as items of standard equi pment, NHTSA's compliance testing is conducted with those items in place and fully functioning.

In other words, Standard No. 210 does not require that the safety belt alone provide the specified level of occupant protection in order for the anchorages to be exempt from the anchorage location requirements. Such a requirement would be unrealistic, s ince occupant crash protection depends on the safety belt system working synergistically with other vehicle features, such as energy absorbing instrument panels, collapsible steering columns, and anti-lacerative windshield glass. Because of this synergi sm, NHTSA has always conducted its Standard No. 208 compliance testing with all items of standard equipment in place and functioning during the test. We would treat an air bag in the same way. Therefore, if the vehicle manufacturer certifies that the d river's seating position complies with the occupant protection criteria in Standard No. 208 with an automatic belt in position and functional during the test, the anchorages for that automatic belt would be exempt from the location

4 requirements in Standard No. 210. This certification by the manufacturer would be based on the protection afforded by the automatic belt and all other standard features in the vehicle, including air bags.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-1.96

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/06/89

FROM: MICHAEL F. TRENTACOSTE -- DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MOTOR CARRIER STANDARDS

TO: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF FHWA AND NHTSA REGULATIONS

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/19/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO GARRY O. MCCABE; REDBOOK A33 (2); STANDARD 301 LETTER DATED 01/25/89 FROM GARY O. MCCABE TO MIKE TRENTACOSTE

TEXT: On February 27, 1989, you provided Mr. Ralph Hitchcock of NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Standards a letter and drawings from Mr. Garry McCabe asking for information on a testing program for a "rapid fueling system" for trucks. Our response to Mr. McC abe discusses how NHTSA's regulations and motor vehicle safety standards may affect his product.

Having reviewed the materials you forwarded to us, we are returning the letter and drawings to you. Please note that our response to Mr. McCabe addresses NHTSA's regulations only, and does not seek to interpret the applicable FHWA requirements.

Attachment

ID: nht89-1.97

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/08/89

FROM: ROBERT J. KNAUFF -- APPLIED RESEARCH AND DESIGN

TO: KATHLEEN DEMETER -- ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL FOR GENERAL LAW U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 07/24/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO ROBERT KNAUFF; REDBOOK A33; FMVSS 108; LETTER DATED 08/16/88 FROM RICHARD H. SCHULTZ -- AMERICAN PULSE LIGHTS INC TO ROBERT KNAUFF; LETTER DATED 12/07/87 FROM RICHARD H. SCHULTZ -- AMERICAN PULSE LIGHTS TO ROBERT J. KNAUFF

TEXT: Dear Ms. DeMeter:

Confirming our phone conversation relating to your letter dated May 26, 1989, this is to confirm that you have my permission to use the information marked "confidential" in determining if my collision avoidance system will conform to the existing laws.

If you have any other questions, please feel free to contact me.

Professionally,

ID: nht89-1.98

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/09/89

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

TO: PAUL WALKER -- PRESIDENT SUNGUEST, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 02/17/89 FROM PAUL WALKER TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA; OCC 3157

TEXT: Dear Mr. Walker:

Thank you for your letter regarding your company's efforts to export a product to Saudi Arabia. The product in question is identified in your letter as "remote-controlled electronic automobile window shades." Your letter indicates that your company's to tal production for the next two years will be for export only. It is my understanding that your company must provide the Saudi Arabian Standards Organization with a statement from this agency that we would "have no objection to the product in the U.S. m arket" before "large quantities" of the product can be shipped into Saudi Arabia. I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond to your request.

At the outset, I would like to make clear that the United States does not use a certification process similar to that used by the European countries, in which a manufacturer delivers its products to be certified to a governmental entity, and that entity tests the products to determine if they can be certified as complying with the applicable standards. Instead, in the United States, the individual manufacturer of the product is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable U.S. safe ty standards. After the manufacturer has made the necessary certifications, the product may be sold to the public without any "approvals" or "endorsements" from this agency.

In the case of your window shades, NHTSA has no standard that establishes requirements for window shades as items of motor vehicle equipment. Thus, your company is not required to make any certification of the window shades before offering them for sale . We do have two safety standards that might affect the installation of window shades in new vehicles. The first is Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance requirements for glazing used in motor vehicles. These requirements in clude specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars). The second is Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, which sets forth flammabili ty

resistance performance requirements for window shades installed in new vehicles. No manufacturer or dealer could legally install any window shades, including the shade developed by your company, in a new vehicle unless the manufacturer or dealer cer tifies that the vehicle with the window shade installed complies with Standards No. 205 and 302, as well as any other applicable standards.

To enforce the requirements in our laws and regulations, we conduct spot checks of motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment after they have been certified and/or sold to the public or otherwise introduced into interstate commerce. For these s pot checks, we purchase the vehicles or item of equipment and test it according to the procedures specified in the applicable safety standard. If the product passes the tests, no further steps are taken. If the product fails the tests and is determined not to comply with the applicable standards or if it is determined that the product contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety, the manufacturer of the product is required to remedy the problem, by repairing or replacing the product at no cost to the purchaser. Since your product has not yet been sold in the United States, NHTSA has not made any spot checks or other evaluations of your product.

With that explanation, we will state that the window shades developed by Sunquest, Inc. could legally be sold to the public in the United States and could legally be installed on new vehicles to be sold to the public in the United States, if the vehicle manufacturer certifies that the vehicle with the window shades installed complies with all applicable safety standards.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,