Mr. Robert G. Mills

Supervisor, Homologation

Triumph Designs Limited

Normandy Way, Hinckley

Leicestershire LE10 3BZ

United Kingdom

Dear Mr. Mills:

This responds to your letter, dated April 8, 2011, asking whether the motorcycle rear lamp system you describe is permissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS)

No. 108, which governs lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment on vehicles.  In a February 2012, meeting with agency staff you stated that the project for which you were requesting this  interpretation was on hold.  On October 5, 2015, you emailed Thomas Healy of my staff asking about the status of our response to your letter.  I apologize for the delay in our response.  As explained below, we believe that the system would be permissible under FMVSS No. 108.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301).  NHTSA does not provide approval of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, and we do not determine compliance of a vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment outside the context of an actual enforcement proceeding.  Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards that are in effect on the date of manufacture.  The following represents our opinion regarding the applicability of our regulations to your proposed lighting configuration based upon the facts set forth in the materials that you submitted.

In your letter and the attached diagrams, you describe the lamp system as consisting of two lamps, with one lamp located on either side of the rear vertical centerline of the motorcycle.  The center axes of the lamps are separated by a distance of 315 mm (12.4 in).  Each of the lamps functions as turn signal, stop lamp, and taillamp.  The operational logic chart attached to your letter indicates that the system has four functional modes: 1) both lamps continuously illuminated as taillamps; 2) one lamp flashing as a turn signal while the other lamp remains continuously illuminated as a taillamp; 3) both lamps illuminated at a higher intensity as stop lamps when the brakes are applied; and 4) in a situation in which the brakes are applied at the same time as a turn is indicated, one lamp flashing as a turn signal while the other lamp remains continuously illuminated at a higher intensity as a stop lamp.  You state that the effective projected luminous lens area of the two lamps in your configuration, when combined, is 50 cm².

You ask whether it would be permissible to combine the two lamps on either side of the vertical centerline of the motorcycle in order to meet the effective projected luminous lens area requirements of FMVSS No. 108.  You further inquire whether the required minimum 4 inch edge to edge separation of red turn signal lamps from the taillamp or stop lamp for motorcycles equipped with a single stop and taillamp applies to your lighting configuration.

You pose an additional question about the operating condition of the lamps when both the turn signal and stop lamps are activated.  In your letter, you state that when one of the turn signal lamps is activated during braking, only the lamp on the opposite side of motorcycle from the turn signal that is flashing will be activated as a stop lamp.  Since only one of the two lamps used to meet the effective projected luminous lens area requirement for the stop lamp is activated in this situation, the effective projected luminous lens area falls below that required for a motorcycle equipped with a single stop lamp.  You inquire whether this situation would be permissible under FMVSS No. 108. 

We agree that you may combine the lamps on either side of the vertical centerline of the motorcycle for the purpose of meeting the effective projected luminous lens area requirements for a motorcycle equipped with a single stop lamp in FMVSS No. 108.  FMVSS No. 108 requires that the stop lamps and the rear turn signal lamps must meet the requirements of Table IV-a.  FMVSS No. 108 permits the use of multiple compartment lamps or multiple lamps to meet the photometric requirements for stop lamps.[1]  The compartments or lamps in such systems are tested together as a unit as long as all the compartments or lamps are within a certain distance of each other.  For a two-lamp system, the center axis of the lamps must be within 560 mm of each other to be tested as a unit.  The distance between the two lamps in your configuration is less than 560 mm, thus the lamps could be considered a combination lamp for the purpose of meeting the effective projected luminous lens area requirement for the stop lamp.

In previous interpretation letters addressing rear motorcycle lamp configurations, we have applied the distance requirements in FMVSS No. 108 and referenced SAE standards to conclude that lamp systems consisting of lamps on either side of the rear vertical centerline of a motorcycle can be considered single lamps for the purposes of meeting the stop lamp photometric requirements (See enclosed November 20, 1998 letter to Tadashi Suzuki).

You correctly note in your letter that Table I-c of FMVSS No. 108 requires turn signal lamps on a motorcycle to be separated from the tail lamp or stop lamp by 4 inches when a single tail or stop lamp is mounted on the vertical centerline of the motorcycle and the turn signal lamps are red.  We do not believe that this requirement is applicable to the configuration described in your letter because the configuration you describe consists of two lamps mounted either side of the vertical centerline instead of a single stop or tail lamp mounted on the vertical centerline of the motorcycle.  

We believe that the situation in which the turn signal and stop lamp of your proposed lighting system are both activated would be permissible under FMVSS No. 108.  The Table I-c of FMVSS No. 108 states that when a stop lamp is optically combined with a turn signal lamp, the circuit shall be such that the stop signal cannot be turned on if the turn signal is flashing.  According to the definition of optically combined in FMVSS No. 108, optical combination results when 1) a lamp has two or more separate light sources, or a single light source that operates in different ways (e.g., a two-filament bulb), and 2) the lamps optically functional lens area is wholly or partially common to two or more lamp functions.

In your proposed system, both lamps together constitute the required single stop lamp, and each individual lamp also acts as a turn signal.  Under the definition stated above, the single stop lamp (consisting of both lamps) is considered to be optically combined with both turn signals.  Such an interpretation could mean that a situation when one lamp flashes as a turn signal while the other lamp remains continuously illuminated as a stop signal would not be permissible.  Neither of the lamps could be illuminated as a stop signal if one of the turn signals is flashing.  In other words, the vehicle would not display any signal indicating that the brakes were being applied in such a situation.  If the taillamps could not indicate braking, we would consider this to constitute a safety risk and to be impermissible under FMVSS No. 108.

In the unique situation presented by the lamp system you describe, when one lamp flashes as a turn signal while the other lamp remains continuously (and more strongly) illuminated as a stop signal, the lighted section that is flashing as a turn signal does cease to operate as a stop signal.  The lamp system as a whole, however, would continue to signal when the brakes are applied because the other lighted section continues to operate as a stop signal.  We conclude that the situation when one lamp flashes as a turn signal while the other lamp remains continuously (and more strongly) illuminated as a stop signal is permissible under FMVSS No. 108.  We caution that this interpretation is limited to the unique motorcycle rear lamp system described in your letter.

If you have further questions, you may refer them to Thomas Healy of this Office (202-366-2992).

Sincerely,

                                                                        Paul A. Hemmersbaugh

                                                                        Acting Chief Counsel

Dated:  10/20/15

Ref: Standard No. 108

Cullen Sisskind

Commercial Vehicle Section; Location 062

California Highway Patrol

P.O. Box 942898

Sacramento, CA 94298-0001

Dear Mr. Sisskind:

This letter responds to an email from Clint Hightower of the California Highway Patrol to Louis Molino requesting a written interpretation concerning the definition of the term occupant, as used in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110. Specifically, you would like to know whether the driver is considered an occupant for the purpose of the vehicle placard required by S4.3. To respond to your question, we would consider the driver to be an occupant of a vehicle for the purpose of stating the vehicles seating capacity on the placard required by FMVSS No. 110.

FMVSS No. 110 requires that a placard bearing information about vehicle capacity weight, designated seating capacity, and information regarding the tires and loading be permanently affixed to each new motor vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less .[1] For the purpose of determining designated seating capacity, S4.3(b) of FMVSS No. 110 requires that the capacity of a vehicle be expressed in terms of the total number of occupants. The term designated seating capacity is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 for the purposes of the FMVSSs as the number of designated seating positions provided. Section 571.3 also defines the term driver as the occupant of a motor vehicle seated immediately behind the steering control system.

Thus, by definition, the driver is considered an occupant of a motor vehicle. Because the drivers seating position is considered a designated seating position, it follows directly from the definition of the designated seating capacity that the drivers seating position is included in the calculation of a vehicles seating capacity.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about this issue, please feel free to contact David Jasinski of my office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

O. Kevin Vincent

Chief Counsel

Dated: 2/4/14

Ref: Standard No. 110

Cullen Sisskind

Commercial Vehicle Section; Location 062

California Highway Patrol

P.O. Box 942898

Sacramento, CA 94298-0001

Dear Mr. Sisskind:

This letter responds to an email from Clint Hightower of the California Highway Patrol to Louis Molino requesting a written interpretation concerning the definition of the term occupant, as used in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110. Specifically, you would like to know whether the driver is considered an occupant for the purpose of the vehicle placard required by S4.3. To respond to your question, we would consider the driver to be an occupant of a vehicle for the purpose of stating the vehicles seating capacity on the placard required by FMVSS No. 110.

FMVSS No. 110 requires that a placard bearing information about vehicle capacity weight, designated seating capacity, and information regarding the tires and loading be permanently affixed to each new motor vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less .[1] For the purpose of determining designated seating capacity, S4.3(b) of FMVSS No. 110 requires that the capacity of a vehicle be expressed in terms of the total number of occupants. The term designated seating capacity is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 for the purposes of the FMVSSs as the number of designated seating positions provided. Section 571.3 also defines the term driver as the occupant of a motor vehicle seated immediately behind the steering control system.

Thus, by definition, the driver is considered an occupant of a motor vehicle. Because the drivers seating position is considered a designated seating position, it follows directly from the definition of the designated seating capacity that the drivers seating position is included in the calculation of a vehicles seating capacity.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about this issue, please feel free to contact David Jasinski of my office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely yours,

O. Kevin Vincent

Chief Counsel

OCC:DJasinski:62992:cyt:9/25/13

Reprinted with edits from NVS-100 and 200 on 1/17/14

NCC-112 subj, dj, cyt NCC13-003266

DRAFT 1/24/2014 3:01 PM

NVS-100, NVS-200, Interps. Std 110, Redbook

S:\INTERP\110\571-110- placard - CHP - 13-003266.docxDated: 2/4/14

Ref: Standard No. 110

Dr. Niall R. Lynam

Senior Vice President

Magna Mirrors of America, Inc.

49 West 3^rd Street

Holland, Michigan 49423

Dear Dr. Lynam:

This responds to your letter, dated March 5, 2013, requesting clarification on Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, as it pertains to the drivers side outside rearview mirror of a passenger car.

Your letter asks whether FMVSS No. 111 permits the use of a convex mirror having a radius of curvature of thirty (30) meters and a magnification of 0.95 as the drivers side outside rearview mirror on a passenger car. Your letter also requests that, for purposes of providing an interpretation, NHTSA assume that that the mirrors field of view is in accordance with S5.2.1, the mounting is in accordance with S5.2.2, and the construction is in accordance with S11.

Even if we make the assumptions that you request, the plain language of FMVSS No. 111 does not allow convex mirrors as drivers side outside rearview mirrors. FMVSS No. 111 defines two types of mirrors, convex mirrors and mirrors of unit magnification. Paragraph S.4 defines a convex mirror as having a curved reflective surface, whereas a unit magnification mirror is defined as a plane or flat mirror. Paragraph S5.2 of the standard, Outside rearview mirrordriver's side, applies specifically to the drivers side rearview mirror. It states, in relevant part, that [e]ach passenger car shall have an outside mirror of unit magnification. Thus, it does not permit the use of the convex mirror described in your letter, regardless of its radius of curvature. Rather, a mirror that is flat or plane must be used as the drivers side mirror in order to comply with the standard.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Jesse Chang of my staff at 202-366-2992.

Sincerely,

O. Kevin Vincent

Chief Counsel

Dated: 8/15/13

FMVSS 111

Mr. Steven Crowell

P.O. Box 303

Eastham, MA 02642-0303

Dear Mr. Crowell:

This responds to your letters to Administrator David Strickland, former Deputy Administrator Ronald Medford, and several other officials of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), which we received in October of 2012. Your letters have been referred to my office for reply. You ask for help correcting the violations found in automobile interior partition performance in police cruisers, limousines, utility vans, and taxicabs. The partitions separate the front seat occupants (particularly the driver) from back seat passengers, primarily for security reasons. I will refer to these as security partitions.

From the enclosures you sent, I understand that you believe that security partitions can cause harm to drivers and passengers and should not be installed in vehicles. You have written NHTSA on a number of occasions since 1984 asking about the application of NHTSA regulations to security partitions. Several offices of the agency have responded over the years, including this office. On September 13, 1985, then-Chief Counsel Jeffrey R. Miller sent you a letter explaining how the agencys requirements apply to security partitions.^[1]

You state in a recent letter that NHTSA has been inconsistent in responding to you and that you believe that a May 2, 2012 letter from the Office of Defects Investigation contradicts earlier agency letters to you about security partitions. The 2012 letter appears highly focused on answering your inquiry from the point of view of the defects investigators. The 1985 letter to you from the Chief Counsels office should serve to provide an overall view of our requirements as applied to security partitions.[2] In that letter, we noted that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205 applies to such partitions. Since that letter, we have issued various FMVSSs, including FMVSS No. 226 (Ejection Mitigation), which specifically excludes certain vehicles that have such partitions, including the types of vehicles you mention. We regret if our letters have caused any confusion.

In your current letters, and judging from your past letters to NHTSA on this subject, it appears that you would like the agency to test and possibly remove the security partitions in the vehicles listed above. As to the merits of the security partitions now in place, we were unable to verify your letters references to the harm caused by security partitions. You are welcome to submit any actual data you have supporting your claims. On the other hand, we acknowledge that security partitions have a place in protecting the vehicle operator from assailants. After considering the available information, including the possible trade-offs to the safety and security of the operator in the absence of a security partition, we regret to inform you that testing security partitions that are now in taxicabs and police vehicles is not an initiative the agency will pursue at this time.

In your letter, you ask a question about the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commissions (TLCs) Taxi of Tomorrow program. We suggest that you contact TLC directly for information about the test program.

Sincerely,

O. Kevin Vincent

Chief Counsel

Dated: 1/11/13

Standard No. 201

Mr. Kevin Ro

National Manager, Technical &

  Regulatory Affairs, Safety

Toyota Motor North America, Inc.

601 Thirteenth Street, NW, Suite 910 South

Washington, DC  20005

Dear Mr. Ro:

This letter responds to Toyotas request for an interpretation of the requirements associated with advanced air bags equipped with multistage inflators.  You state Toyotas belief that the term multistage inflator, as used in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, is not intended to be design-restrictive, but intended to characterize various designs of advanced air bags with decision-based deployment strategies that result in different levels of air bag internal pressure.  You request NHTSAs confirmation that technologies that are other than or in addition to the types of technologies traditionally used as multistage inflators that function to adjust air bag pressure based on occupant classification can be used to meet the low risk deployment requirements of FMVSS No. 208.  You have provided an example of one such technology to NHTSA under a claim of confidentiality.  As explained below, NHTSA agrees with you that the term multistage inflator should be interpreted broadly to encompass any type of technology that adjusts air bag pressure based on occupant classification.

By way of background, on May 12, 2000, NHTSA published a final rule in the Federal Register (65 FR 30680) requiring advanced air bags in all passenger cars, multi-purpose vehicles, light trucks, and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 3,855 kilograms (8,500 pounds) or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 2,495 kilograms (5,500 pounds) or less.  That final rule established advanced air bag performance requirements to minimize the risk of injury to children, as well as new requirements to enhance protection of small and mid-sized adults.  Pertinent to your question, S21 and S23 provide three options for compliance low risk deployment, automatic suppression, or dynamic automatic suppression.  Your question concerns the low risk deployment option with respect to the testing of 3-year-old and 6-year-old child test dummies.

In the test procedure for the low risk deployment option for the 3-year-old and 6-year-old test dummies (S22.4.4 and S24.4.4), the regulation states that [i]f the frontal air bag system contains a multistage inflator, the vehicle shall be able to comply with the injury criteria at any stage or combination of stages or time delay between successive stages that could occur in a

rigid barrier crash test at or below 26 km/h (16 mph), under the test procedure specified in S22.5.  The test procedure specified in S22.5 (the indicant test) is used in determining the stages that are fired for use in the low risk deployment test.

In the May 2000 final rule (65 FR 30688), the agency expressed an intent to avoid adopting requirements that might be overly design restrictive that would make it difficult for vehicle manufacturers to design their air bags to perform well in both rigid barrier tests and the wide range of real world crashes.  In keeping with that sentiment, we interpret the term multistage inflator broadly to encompass any type of technology that adjusts air bag pressure as a function of time based on factors such as occupant classification and vehicle crash pulse.  The successive variations in deployment levels, regardless of the type of technology that causes them, are considered to be the stages of deployment.  Thus, the low risk deployment test would apply to these new technologies that may be used in lieu of or in combination with traditional multistage inflators.  In NHTSAs compliance testing, we have already observed examples of advanced deployment technologies, and have determined that these technologies can satisfy the low risk deployment requirements, provided, of course, the systems meet the specified performance requirements.

I hope this information is helpful.  If you have any further questions about this issue, please feel free to contact David Jasinski of my office at (202) 366-2992.

                                                                                    Sincerely yours,

                                                                                    O. Kevin Vincent

                                                                                    Chief Counsel

Dated: 9/20/13

Ref: Standard No. 208

Mr. Christopher Palabrica

President

Renewed Performance Company, Inc.

1095 Development Drive

Tipton, IN 46072

Dear Mr. Palabrica:

This responds to your email requesting an interpretation regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) Nos. 209, Seat belt assemblies, and 210, Seat belt assembly anchorages. You state that you refurbish fire trucks and, as part of the process, would like to replace the existing Type 2 seat belt assemblies with new Type 2 seat belt assemblies that include seat belt monitoring systems.[1] You ask whether you may install the new seat belt assemblies in the refurbished fire trucks.

In your email it was unclear how extensively you refurbish the fire trucks. In a telephone conversation on August 16, 2016 with Ms. Callie Roach of my staff, you clarified that you are only asking for an interpretation on whether you can use existing anchorages in used fire trucks to secure new seat belt assemblies that include seat belt monitoring systems.[2] The short answer is that our regulations do not prohibit you from installing new seat belt assemblies in used fire trucks. Such installation is permitted as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of any safety feature installed in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. Further, the seat belt assemblies must meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 209.

General Authority

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment and does not determine whether a product conforms to the FMVSSs outside of an agency compliance proceeding. Instead, the Safety Act requires manufacturers to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable FMVSSs that are in effect on the date of manufacture. The following is our interpretation based on our understanding of the facts you provided.

Applicable Standards and Requirements

There are several standards and requirements that may apply to the installation of new seat belt assemblies. You specifically reference FMVSS Nos. 209, Seat belt assemblies, and 210, Seat belt assembly anchorages. NHTSA has also issued FMVSS Nos. 207, Seating systems; 208, Occupant crash protection; and 302, Flammability of interior materials, which may be relevant. Please note that this is not an exhaustive list and other standards may be relevant to the installation of the seat belt assemblies depending on the extent of the refurbishment.

FMVSS Nos. 207, 208, 210, and 302 apply to vehicles on the date of manufacture. These standards are considered vehicle standards that apply to new completed vehicles, as opposed to equipment standards that apply to original and aftermarket items of equipment. (FMVSS No. 209 is an equipment standard, which we will discuss below.) There is no NHTSA requirement that vehicles continue to meet standards after the vehicle is sold to its first retail purchaser.

However, the Safety Act has a requirement under 49 U.S.C. 30122(b) to safeguard the continued compliance of vehicles and equipment. Section 30122(b) states:

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, rental company, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter

The make inoperative provision prohibits any listed entity from making modifications to a vehicle or item of equipment which would impair the vehicles or equipments compliance with any applicable FMVSS. If a vehicle or equipment is in compliance with an applicable standard, listed entities are prohibited from taking them out of compliance.[3]

Discussion

In addressing whether you are permitted to install the new seat belt assemblies, there are three areas of concern: the seat belt assemblys compliance with FMVSS No. 209, the addition of the seat belt warning system, and the make inoperative prohibition under 49 U.S.C. 30122(b). We will address each of these concerns below and explain how they could affect your seat belt assembly installation.

FMVSS No. 209

FMVSS No. 209 applies to seat belt assemblies as separate items of motor vehicle equipment, regardless of whether the assemblies are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as replacements. Section 30112(a) of the Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing for sale, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing into the United States any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or the equipment is in conformity with all applicable safety standards and is certified as being in compliance at the time it was manufactured. The seat belt assemblies you install must comply with and be certified as meeting FMVSS No. 209.

Addition of the Seat Belt Monitoring System

As part of the refurbishing, you state you are installing seat belt assemblies which have seat belt monitoring systems. From the description provided in your letter, it appears that the seat monitoring systems you would install are similar to the seat belt warning systems referenced in FMVSS No. 208. FMVSS No. 208 provides requirements for seat belt warning systems that vary by type of vehicle and year of manufacture. If a seat belt warning system were required for a particular seating position in the vehicles you are refurbishing, the system must continue to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 208 after completion of your work. However, if the warning system was not required for a particular seating position and you are adding a seat belt monitoring system now, the system would be considered an additional safety component. Additional safety components are not required to comply with the provisions of the safety standards, provided that the additional components do not impair the ability of the required safety systems to comply with the safety standards.[4] For example, the visual display to the driver that you describe (DO NOT MOVE APPARATUS) must not interfere with the performance of required visual warnings and displays.

Make Inoperative Prohibition

Section 30122 prohibits listed entities from knowingly making inoperative a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipments compliance with applicable FMVSSs, such as by removing, disconnecting, or degrading the performance of a required safety system. As a refurbisher of fire trucks, you are an entity that must comply with 30122. It does not appear that your replacing the existing Type 2 seat belt assemblies with new certified Type 2 seat belt assemblies would violate the make inoperative prohibition. However, when installing the seat belt assemblies, you must ensure that the seat belt assembly is compatible with the existing anchorages and that your work does not degrade the strength of the existing seat belt anchorage system. Damaging the anchorages could take the vehicle out of compliance with FMVSS No. 210.

While you have an obligation not to impair the vehicles compliance with applicable FMVSSs, you do not have to actually test the refurbished fire trucks to ensure that compliance is not diminished. However, you could violate 30122 if you should have known that a device or element of design would be made inoperative by the modification.[5] In the context of an enforcement proceeding, the agency would assess whether you exercised reasonable judgement in undertaking the modification and reasonable skill in implementing it.

You should also be aware that state and local jurisdictions have the authority to set requirements that apply to the use of vehicles and may have regulations applying to the installation of seat belt assemblies. Further, for information on private tort liability, we suggest you contact your private attorney or insurance carrier.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Ms. Roach at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood

Acting Chief Counsel

Dated: 1/19/17

Ref: Standard Nos. 207, 208, 209, 210 and VSA Section 30122

Erika Z. Jones

Mayer Brown LLP

1999 K St., N.W.

Washington, DC 20006-1101

Dear Ms. Jones:

This responds to your November 29, 2012 letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on behalf of Graco Childrens Products, Inc. (Graco), asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child restraint systems. On

January 8, 2013, you and Graco representatives met with NHTSA staff to elaborate on the information provided in your letter.

Your questions relate to a Graco belt-positioning booster seat that has armrests that are height-adjustable so that a caregiver can lower or raise the armrests to a height comfortable for the child. You note Graco has observed that, in some tests, an armrest separated from the booster seat. In other tests, the armrest did not separate, but moved from a lower adjustment position to a higher adjustment position, remaining level.[1] You state that the injury assessment reference values measured by the test dummy used in the tests were all within the limits of FMVSS

No. 213.

You ask about S5.1.1(a) and (b)(1) of FMVSS No. 213, which state:

S5.1.1  Child restraint system integrity. When tested in accordance with S6.1, each child restraint system shall meet the requirements of paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section. 

(a) Exhibit no complete separation of any load bearing structural element and no partial separation exposing either surfaces with a radius of less than inch or surfaces with protrusions greater than 3/8 inch above the immediate adjacent surrounding contactable surface of any structural element of the system.

(b)(1) If adjustable to different positions, remain in the same adjustment position during the testing that it was in immediately before the testing, except as otherwise specified in paragraph (b)(2). [Paragraphs (b)(2) and (c) are not relevant to Gracos question so we do not restate them here.]

*  *  *  *  *

Discussion

The following interpretation of FMVSS No. 213 is based on our understanding of the information provided in your letter and in the meeting, and is limited to the particular aspects of the Graco booster seat you presented.

Question 1. Your first question asks: does S5.1.1(a) prohibit the armrest separating from the booster seat?

Our answer is no, we do not consider the armrest separation to be prohibited by S5.1.1(a). This is because the complete separation prohibition of S5.1.1(a) applies to load bearing structural element(s), and it does not appear that the armrests qualify as such.

Your letter states that the armrests are provided for the childs comfort and to provide a visual guide for the pre-crash positioning of the vehicles Type II belt system. (The owners manual Graco provided (on pages 29 and 35) states: The lap belt portion MUST pass under the armrests and be positioned low on the hips (Emphasis in text.) We assume this is what was meant by your statement that the armrests provide a visual guide.) Graco also indicated in the meeting that the armrests do not contribute to the crashworthiness of the seat.

We have determined that the armrests are not load-bearing structural elements. We interpret the term load-bearing structural element as referring to parts of the child restraint system (CRS) that are needed for the CRS to function as a child restraint and to meet FMVSS No. 213. You indicate that the armrest is provided for comfort and moved due to the Type II belt buckle pushing against it. It does not appear to us that the armrest is needed for the CRS to function as a child restraint or that it contributed to the child restraints meeting the standard. Thus, we conclude that the armrest is not a load-bearing structural element subject to the complete separation prohibition of S5.1.1(a).

Question 2. Your next question asks whether an armrest is required by S5.1.1(b)(1) to remain in the same adjustment position during the testing that it was in immediately before the testing.

Our answer has two parts.

First, S5.1.1(b)(1) generally applies to adjustable armrests. The requirement is intended to prevent a childs fingers or limbs from being caught between shifting parts of the child restraint, and to prevent a child from sliding too far forward and downward (submarining) during a crash. A change in adjustment position of an armrest could pose an unreasonable injury risk by collapsing on a childs limb or fingers or by movement that results in a scissoring action, the closure of apertures in which a finger can be caught, etc.

However, we have in the past interpreted S5.1.1(b)(1) as not applying to certain mechanisms. In one letter, we interpreted S5.1.1(b)(1) as not applying to an adjustable shoulder belt clip that moved from an initial adjustment position in FMVSS No. 213s

dynamic test.[2] In another letter, we did not apply S5.1.1(b)(1) to a headrests moving

upward.[3] With those mechanisms, the change in adjustment position would not increase the risk of finger or limb entrapment or increase the risk of submarining.

Thus, our second part to the answer is that we interpret S5.1.1(b)(1) as not prohibiting the armrests change in adjustment position from a lower height to a higher height. That change of position of the armrest would not result in an increased risk of finger or limb entrapment, unlike the case of an armrest that shifted to a lower adjustment position from a higher one. Also, the armrests change of adjustment position would not increase the risk of submarining. We assume in this answer that there is not associated with the change in armrest position any kind of scissoring mechanism between shifting parts to which the child would be exposed, no apertures that become smaller, no increased concentration of forces on the child, etc.

If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely yours,

O. Kevin Vincent

Chief Counsel

Dated: 5/28/14

Ref: Standard No. 213

Mr. Larry Fowler

Director of School Bus Sales

Matheny Motors

P.O. Box 1304

Parkersburg, WV  26102

Dear Mr. Fowler:

This responds to your letter asking about the Do Not Block label requirement in S5.5.3(d) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release.  You ask if it is a violation of a Do Not Block policy to have integrated child seats or child restraint harnesses without tethers adjacent to school bus emergency exits.[1]

In short, the answer to your question is no, provided all applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 217 are met.  Additional considerations relevant to this response and clarification of previous NHTSA statements are discussed below.

Section S5.5.3(d) of 49 CFR 571.217 applies to new school buses with one or more wheel chair anchorage positions.  S5.5.3(d) requires school bus manufacturers to place a label with the words DO NOT BLOCK directly above or beneath each Emergency Door or Emergency Exit label on the school buses.  NHTSA stated that the agencys primary reason for the requirement was to inform school bus users and aftermarket wheelchair retrofitters that emergency exits should not be blocked with wheelchairs or other items, such as book bags, knapsacks, sports equipment or band equipment.[2]  

The labeling requirement of S5.5.3(c) does not establish a prohibition on manufacturers barring them from installing an integrated child seat in the exit row.  If a manufacturer installed an integrated child seat in the exit row, there would not be a per se violation of FMVSS No. 217.  We assume in this answer, of course, that the applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 217 were met.  For instance, S5.4.2 of FMVSS No. 217 has requirements that ensure school bus emergency exit openings are of sufficient size for emergency egress.  The exit with the integrated child seat adjacent to it must meet those requirements when tested by NHTSA in accordance with the standards test procedures. 

As to whether a manufacturers installing an integrated child seat in the emergency exit row would be contrary to a NHTSA Do Not Block policy, we assume you are referring to statements in NHTSAs guidelines on transporting pre-school age children on school buses.[3]  NHTSA issued the guidelines in 1999 to foster use of child restraints on school buses to transport pre-schoolers. 

Out of concern that placement of a typical car seat in the seat next to an emergency exit window could possibly impede occupant exit in an emergency, and because the public was generally unfamiliar with using child restraints on school buses,  the agency recommended that child restraints not be placed adjacent to emergency exits (guideline, section 5, p. 4).  The point of the recommendation was to make sure that persons using child restraints on school buses carefully consider the egress issue.  It may be possible for integrated child seats and child restraint harnesses without tethers to be installed such that they do not impede emergency egress from the exit.  However, ultimately it is up to those persons with firsthand knowledge of the bus to assess whether installation of a particular child seat would block the exit.^[4]   

Note that NHTSA does not regulate the use of motor vehicles, including school buses.  Thus, S5.5.3(d) does not create any Federal requirement that would prohibit school bus users from using harnesses, or any other child restraint system, in any particular seat.  Each State has the authority to set its own standards regarding the use of motor vehicles, including school buses.  For this reason, State law should be consulted regarding the use of child restraints on school buses.[5]  

I hope this information is helpful.  If you have further questions please contact Analiese Marchesseault of my office at 202-366-2992.

Sincerely,

                                                                        Stephen P. Wood

                                                                        Acting Chief Counsel

Dated: 6/18/15

Standard No. 217

Mr. Emad Louis

8300 Snow Egret Way

Fort Worth, TX 76118

Dear Mr. Louis:

This responds to your September 27, 2017 email asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release. As we understand your email, you are asking whether the standard allows a certain design configuration on a bus that is over 10,000 pounds and not a school bus.

In your email, you explain that the bus you purchased has a cargo net that can be pulled and secured across a portion of the back of the bus to allow the back of the bus to be used for storage. You state that, behind the cargo net, there are four foldaway seats that are flipped up when the area is used for storage. As we understand your questions, you ask whether, with this bus design, the standard permits a manufacturer to install a roof exit in lieu of a rear exit to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 217 and whether it is permissible to have a rear door that is not designated and labeled emergency exit. Our answer to both questions is yes.[1]

Background

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment and does not determine whether a product conforms to the FMVSSs outside of an agency compliance proceeding. Instead, the Safety Act requires manufacturers to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable FMVSSs that are in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects.

In your email, you provided NHTSA with an email exchange that occurred in June 2016 between the bus manufacturer, Glaval Bus (Glaval), and an employee of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). In his response, the FTA employee stated that FTA and NHTSA agreed with Glavals interpretation of FMVSS No. 217.

NHTSA has been unable to confirm any communication between FTA and NHTSA. We point out, however, that official interpretations of legal requirements under this agencys statutes, standards, and regulations are issued only by this office and only in writing. We apologize for any confusion that statement may have caused.

Discussion

Roof Exit

Your first question asks whether NHTSA would permit the installation of a roof emergency exit instead of a rear emergency exit in your bus that has a cargo net that can portion off part of the rear of the bus for use as a storage area.

FMVSS No. 217 permits a bus that is over 10,000 pounds and not a school bus (non-school bus) to meet the requirement for the provision of emergency exits by either meeting the requirements of S5.2.2 or S5.2.3. We assume from the facts you provide that Glaval intended for the bus to meet the requirements in S5.2.2, which applies to buses other than school buses.[2] In relevant part, S5.2.2.2 states that [w]hen the bus configuration precludes installation of an accessible rear exit, a roof exit that meet the requirements of S5.3 through S5.5 when the bus is overturned on either side, with the occupant standing facing the exit, shall be provided in the rear half of the bus.

The purpose of S5.2.2.2s requirement to provide a rear exit is to ensure emergency egress in the case of a rollover. To accommodate bus designs that preclude the installation of an accessible rear emergency exit door or window, FMVSS No. 217 allows the installation of a roof emergency exit in lieu of a rear emergency exit door or window. However, the agency emphasizes that the alternative roof exit is only permitted when the bus design precludes installation of an accessible rear exit.[3]

An issue raised by your question is: When does a bus configuration preclude installation of an accessible rear exit? Clearly, buses with a rear-engine design preclude installation of an accessible rear exit.[4] NHTSA has also allowed the installation of a roof emergency exit in lieu of a rear emergency exit when a bus had a permanent storage cage that blocked access to the rear emergency exit.[5]

While the past interpretations of what designs would preclude the installation of a rear exits have dealt with permanent structures or vehicle features, NHTSA does not require the configuration to be permanent to preclude installation of the rear exit. Given that the addition of the cargo net, when pulled across/installed, could block passengers access to the rear exit door during normal operation and in an emergency, in this circumstance, NHTSA would accept the manufacturers determination that the bus configuration precluded the installation of a rear exit. Therefore, based on the facts you presented, the installation of the emergency roof exit in lieu of an emergency rear exit would be allowed.[6]

Labeling

Your second question asks whether NHTSA would allow your bus to have a rear door that is not designated as an emergency exit. As we state above, a roof emergency exit is permitted to be installed in compliance with S5.2.2.2 in lieu of the rear emergency exit in a bus with the configuration you describe. As long as the bus otherwise complies with FMVSS No. 217, the rear door would not be required to be designated and labeled as an emergency exit.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Callie Roach of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Morrison

Chief Counsel

Dated: 12/7/17

Ref: FMVSS No. 217