ID: 15100.ztv

Mr. Lawrence Rucker
3924 O'Bannon Drive, Apt. A
Jackson, Mississippi 39213

Dear Mr. Rucker:

This is in reply to your recent undated letter that arrived in this office on May 5. You write requesting a manufacturer identification number for your "new style of high-mounted brake lights." You have been told "that everything seems to be within the federal code of 108."

This refers to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment.

My letter is based on the assumption that you intend these lamps to replace the center high-mounted stop lamp rather than to be mounted as pairs to supplement a vehicle's two lower-mounted stop lamps. As you say, your stop lamps are unique because of their design and shape, to judge by the dollar sign and cocktail glass drawings that you enclosed. As replacement equipment, your lamps would have to meet the appropriate requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and be certified as meeting them.

Standard No. 108 does not specify permissible shapes for the center stop lamp but it does require the lamp to comply with minimum and maximum photometric (light output) values measured at certain identified test points, as set out in Table 10 of the standard. The test points are, in essence, a grid and control to some extent the design of the lamp. For example, it appears to us unlikely that stylized lamps such as yours can meet the requirements of Table 10, or the requirement that the effective projected luminous area not be less than 4 square inches. If you intend the lamp to be located on the parcel shelf, it will have to conform when photometered through the rear glass and at the orientation in which it is installed, and minimize reflections from the light on the rear window that might be visible in the rear view mirror to the driver.

You may obtain a copy of Standard No. 108 and the agency's other regulations by placing an order with the U.S. Government Printing Office, whose telephone number is (202) 512-0133. The volume is "Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 400-999." You will find Standard No. 108 at Section 571.108. The portions that apply to center high-mounted stop lamps are paragraphs S3, S5.1.1.27, S5.3.1.8, and S5.4, Tables III and IV, and Figure 10 (photometrics).

If any lamp design does not conform, it cannot be manufactured and sold as replacement equipment without violating Title 49, United States Code, Section 30112(a). A civil penalty of up to $1,100 may be imposed for each lamp sold, up to a maximum of $880,000.

However, Standard No. 108 does not apply to center stop lamps sold for use on vehicles that were never required by Standard No. 108 to have them in the first place. The center lamp has been required on passenger cars manufactured beginning September 1, 1985, and on light trucks and vans manufactured beginning September 1, 1993. Thus you would not be in violation of Federal law by selling your lamps as presently designed, for use on vehicles produced before these dates. However, they might not be allowed under the laws of Mississippi or other states where you may want to sell them. We aren't conversant with local laws and suggest you ask the Department of Motor Vehicles in your state for advice.

We have no "manufacturer identification number" for producers of lighting equipment, but we do require manufacturers of replacement lighting equipment to file a simple identification statement with us not later than 30 days after beginning manufacture of their products. This regulation is known as 49 CFR Part 566, and can be found in the same volume as Standard No. 108, reference above..

If you have further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d:6/11/97

ID: 15103.wkm

Mr. R. C. Brown
9030 Congressional Parkway
Potomac, MD 20854

Dear Mr. Brown:

This responds to your April 28, 1997 telephone conversation with Walter Myers of my staff and to your follow-up letters, in which you ask whether you may have a vehicle modifier move the seat in your 1996 Cadillac two inches farther to the rear to make it physically possible for you to operate the vehicle.

Modifiers are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining this agency's permission, but are subject to certain regulatory limits on the type of modifications they may make. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our requirements to provide some allowances to a repair business which cannot conform to our requirements when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities. Because your situation is among those given special consideration by NHTSA, this letter should provide you with the relief you seek.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by law to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) that establish performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Federal law further provides that manufacturers must certify that their products conform to all applicable FMVSSs before those products can be offered for sale. In addition, Federal law prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and commercial repair businesses from knowingly "making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. In general, the "make inoperative" provision requires repair businesses to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in a vehicle in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil fines up to $1,100 per violation.

In this case, moving a seat, whether or not the seat belts are also moved, could affect compliance with four standards: No. 207, Seating Systems; No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection; No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies; and No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. In situations such as yours, however, where the modification must be made to accommodate a disability, we have been willing to consider violation of the "make inoperative" provision a purely technical one justified by public need. Accordingly, this agency will not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that modifies the seat on your vehicle to accommodate your condition.

We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made to the seat, and the person making the modifications should consider the possible safety consequences of those modifications. For example, in moving a seat, it is essential that the modifier ensure that the seat is solidly anchored in its new location. You should also be aware that the occupant of a seat that has been moved rearward may have less protection in a crash if the seat is too far rearward relative to the anchorages of the safety belts for that seat. Finally, if you sell your vehicle, we strongly encourage you to advise the purchaser of the modifications you have made to the vehicle.

I hope this information is helpful to you. If you have any questions or need further information, please feel free to contact this office at this address or by fax at (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:207
d:6/24/97

ID: 15104.ogm

Mr. Jurgen Babirad
Rehabilitation Technology Associates
P.O. Box 540
Kinderhook, N.Y. 12106

Dear Mr. Babirad:

This responds to your letter of April 16, 1997, requesting information regarding modification of a motor vehicle for a driver with physical disabilities. Specifically, you request a waiver of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, as the modifications proposed for this particular vehicle will replace the driver's seat with a wheelchair restraint system and remove the driver from the vicinity of the air bag originally installed in the vehicle.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)is authorized under Title 49, Chapter 301 of the U.S. Code to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Chapter 301 prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, Chapter 329 establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

One of the standards established by NHTSA, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208) requires some type of occupant protection system to be installed at all designated seating positions in all passenger cars. Different installation requirements apply depending on the seating position within the vehicle and the date of manufacture.

For passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989, but before September 1, 1996, Standard No. 208 requires automatic crash protection at every front outboard seating position.

Automatic crash protection systems protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, in a 30 mph barrier crash test. The two types of automatic crash protection used to satisfy this requirement are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used). For passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1996 and before September 1, 1997, 95 percent of a manufacturer's production must have air bags at the forward outboard seating positions.

Trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles (with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less)manufactured after September 1, 1994 and before September 1, 1997 are required to provide either automatic crash protection or safety belts at the front outboard seating position. During this period, manufacturers must equip certain percentages of their vehicles with automatic crash protection systems. However, section S4.2 of Standard No. 208 contains an exclusion from the automatic protection requirement for trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less. The exclusion applies to "vehicles manufactured for operation by persons with disabilities," defined as:

vehicles that incorporate a level change device (e.g., a wheelchair lift or a ramp) for onloading or offloading an occupant in a wheelchair, an interior element of design intended to provide the vertical clearance necessary to permit a person in a wheelchair to move between the lift or ramp and the driver's position or to occupy that position, and either an adaptive control or special driver seating accommodation to enable persons who have limited use of their arms or legs to operate a vehicle. For purposes of this definition, special driver seating accommodations include a driver's seat easily removable with means installed for that purpose or with simple tools, or a driver's seat with extended adjustment capability to allow a person to easily transfer from a wheelchair to the driver's seat.

In general, repair businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from the NHTSA to do so, but are subject to certain regulatory limits on the type of modifications they may make. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition would require repair businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment (such as an air bag) installed in compliance with an applicable standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil penalties of up to $1,100 per violation.

Removing a seat, and replacing the seat belts for the seat with a wheelchair tiedown and restraint system, could affect compliance with four standards: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages.

In situations such as yours where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider any violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition a purely technical one justified by public need. In your situation, NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings >against the business that modifies the vehicle to accommodate the condition you describe.

We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made, and the person making the modifications should consider other safety issues that might arise from the modification. For example, in installing a wheelchair tiedown and restraint system, it is critical that the modifier ensure that the driver's wheelchair will be solidly anchored in its new location. In addition, you should consult with the manufacturer to determine how to deactivate the air bag. The manufacturer should be able to provide information on how the modification can be safely performed. Finally, if the vehicle is sold, we encourage the owner to advise the purchaser of the modifications.

Your letter does not contain enough information to indicate conclusively whether your situation falls within the exclusion for vehicles manufactured for operation by persons with disabilities found in Standard No. 208. However, you may nonetheless rely on non-enforcement of the "make inoperative" prohibition for the reasons I described above.

If you have other questions or need some additional information, please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-5253.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:208

d.9/22/97

ID: 15105.drn

Norman A. Shubert, Esq.
Much Shelist Freed Denenberg
Ament Bell & Rubenstein, P.C.
200 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60601-1095

Dear Mr. Shubert:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether a new corporation (your client, Great Dane Limited Partnership, "G.D. Ltd."), may use the world manufacturer identifiers (WMI) of two companies it has acquired (Pines Trailer Limited Partnership, "Pines Trailer," and Great Dane Trailers, Inc., "Great Dane Trailers"). Our answer is G.D. Ltd. may continue to use the WMIs that had been assigned to Pines Trailer and Great Dane Trailers.

Your letter stated that Pines Trailer and Great Dane Trailers were each assigned a WMI "effective for the 1981 model year." After G.D. Ltd. was formed in January 1997, it "acquired the manufacturing plants, equipment and proprietary rights to manufacture and distribute truck trailers" under both the Pines Trailer and Great Dane names and logos.

In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that G.D. Ltd. does not manufacture motor vehicles, has no intention of manufacturing motor vehicles, and is not assigned a WMI. You further stated that all Pines Trailer and Great Dane Trailers rights to manufacture motor vehicles were transferred when G.D. Ltd bought the rights and property of both entities. Your letter stated that G.D. Ltd. intends to maintain the unique product line and product design of Pines Trailer and Great Dane Trailers as separate divisions. Your letter stated that G.D. Ltd. does not presently intend to merge "the manufacturing facilities or product lines of the separate divisions."

NHTSA's regulation at 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number Requirements, states that the WMI shall "uniquely identify the manufacturer, make and type of the motor vehicle if its manufacturer produces 500 or more motor vehicles of its type annually." (49 CFR section 565.6(a)) In past interpretation letters, NHTSA has interpreted "uniquely identify" to mean that the same WMI cannot be used for two corporate entities if there is a possibility the two entities will be confused.

We agree that the facts of G.D. Ltd.'s case are similar to those in our March 20, 1997 letter to Monaco Corporation. As was the case in Monaco, in G.D. Ltd.'s case, no WMI is assigned to the parent company (G.D. Ltd.), but a division (in G.D. Ltd.'s case, each division, Pines Trailer and Great Dane Trailers) has a WMI. NHTSA was assured in the Monaco case that there are no plans for the parent company, Monaco, to manufacture motor vehicles (which would require assigning a WMI). Similarly, in your letter to NHTSA, you assure us that G.D. Ltd. itself will not manufacture truck trailers or any other motor vehicles. You have also assured us that Pines Trailer and Great Dane Trailers will remain separate divisions, and advertised as separate trade names.

Because the relevant facts in your client's case and Monaco's are similar, we arrive at the same decision in your case as we did in Monaco's. Since G.D. Ltd. itself is not assigned a WMI, but its two divisions have separate WMIs, we agree that G.D. Ltd. may continue to use the WMIs that were assigned to Pines Trailer and Great Dane Trailers. Under the facts described, there would be no confusion as to which corporate entity manufactured the motor vehicle.

A copy of this letter will be sent to the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), which has a contract to administer the WMI system for NHTSA. The SAE will make appropriate notations in its records about G.D. Ltd., Pines Trailer, and Great Dane Trailers, and may contact you if it needs further information.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

cc: Ms. Cathy Douds
Society of Automotive Engineers
400 Commonwealth Drive
Warrendale, PA 15096

ref:565
d:6/4/97

ID: 15108.drn

Dennis L. Pool, Administrator
School Finance and Organization Services
Nebraska Department of Education
301 Centennial Mall South
P. O. Box 94987
Lincoln, NE 68509-4987

Dear Dr. Pool:

This responds to your April 14, 1997, letter requesting an opinion concerning the use of "coach type commercial mass transit buses (Greyhound, etc.)." You state that Nebraska is considering amending its regulations to permit the use of these vehicles on activity trips of long distances.

You first ask "May a coach type mass transit bus be used by a school for trips outside of the regular school route use in light of the definition of school bus found at 49 U.S.C. 30124(a) and the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards?"

NHTSA's regulations apply to persons manufacturing and selling or leasing new school buses, and not to the schools or school districts operating the buses. Issues regarding the use of vehicles by school districts are governed by State or local law. As to whether a dealer or leasing company may lease a coach bus for extracurricular trips, the answer depends on whether the bus is new or used, and on the extent of use as a school vehicle.

Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Accordingly, persons selling or leasing a new "school bus" must sell or lease a vehicle that meets the safety standards applicable to school buses. Under 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq., a "school bus" is any vehicle that is designed for carrying 11 or more persons and which is likely to be "used significantly" to transport students to or from school or related events. 49 U.S.C. 30125. A new coach bus that is likely to be used significantly to transport students is a "school bus."

If a new coach bus is sold or leased for use as a school bus (e.g., leased on a regular or long-term basis to a school), the vehicle is a "school bus" and must meet the school bus standards. New Greyhound-type buses as currently manufactured cannot be certified as doing so, and therefore, cannot be sold or leased as school buses. Conversely, if the new coach bus were leased only on a one-time or very occasional basis, such use would not constitute "significant use" as a school vehicle. In the latter situation, the vehicle would not be a "school bus" and thus may be leased to the school for the special event.

The requirement to sell or lease complying school buses applies only to new vehicles. If the school district wishes to buy or lease a used coach bus on a long-term basis, the seller or lessor is not required to sell or lease a school bus. However, NHTSA believes that school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country, and therefore strongly recommends that all buses that are used to transport school children be certified as meeting the school bus safety standards.

Your second question asks "If a coach type bus may be used in the above case, would a school be required to contract or charter it, or may a school own such a vehicle for this purpose?"

As stated above, a dealer or leasing company may lease (charter) a new coach bus on a one-time or very occasional basis, or may sell or lease a used bus for long-term use. A new coach bus cannot be leased for significant use as a school bus or sold for pupil transportation purposes.

I hope this information is helpful. I have enclosed a question-and-answer sheet on "Frequently Asked Questions About Federal School Bus Safety Requirements." If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:VSA#571.3
d.6/16/97

ID: 15110bel.low

Mr. Robert E. Karoly
Director
AD-EX Agency
1847 Fourteenth Avenue
Vero Beach, FL 32960

Dear Mr. Karoly:

Thank you for your letter regarding your device, the Saflex Booster, which is designed to elevate a child above the vehicle seat. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) appreciates your interest in child passenger safety.

The objective of increasing safety for children is also a goal of the agency. The agency is deeply concerned about children, and about infants in rear-facing child safety seats who have been seriously injured or killed by deploying air bags. NHTSA recently issued a final rule which will allow manufacturers to quickly begin depowering air bags to reduce the injuries and fatalities from deploying air bags. A final rule also has been issued to require warning labels in all vehicles with air bags and on rear-facing child seats. These warning labels alert occupants about hazards associated with deploying air bags and also strongly recommend that parents put children in the rear seat, especially infants in a rear-facing child safety seat.

We believe that the message that children belong in the rear seat cannot be overemphasized, especially for infants in rear-facing child seats.

Your Saflex Booster is designed to elevate the child (sitting alone or in a child seat) to possibly reduce hazards of air bag deployment for some air bag designs. We are concerned that not enough is known about air bags and their effect on children to know whether the risk to children would be reduced by your product. Many air bag and child seat designs would need to be tested to evaluate these risks. Further, as explained below, elevating the child as the Saflex Booster does could expose the child to other potential risks of fatality or serious injury.

NHTSA has the authority under 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq. ("the Safety Act"), to issue motor vehicle safety standards for vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. The agency has used this authority to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems ("Standard 213").

Standard No. 213 specifies requirements for child restraint systems used in motor vehicles and aircraft, to reduce the number of children killed or injured in motor vehicle crashes and in aircraft. The term "child restraint system" is defined in S4 of the standard as "any device except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less." As described in your letter, the Saflex Booster meets the child restraint system definition, since it is designed to seat a child in a motor vehicle. Under the Safety Act, each child restraint system that is sold in the United States must be certified as complying with Standard 213, including the Saflex Booster.

NHTSA does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, under the Safety Act, each manufacturer is responsible for "self-certifying" that its products meet all applicable safety standards. Accordingly, any person manufacturing your booster seat would have to certify that the seat complies with the requirements of Standard 213.

We are unable to determine whether a particular seat design would meet the requirements of the standard, short of testing the seat in an actual compliance proceeding. However, we would like to raise the following concerns about your booster seat design.

Your booster appears to be a "belt-positioning seat" under Standard 213. Belt-positioning seats are required by Standard 213 to be restrained against forward motion by the vehicle's lap/shoulder belt system. Your booster seat is held in place by a strap which goes around the vehicle's seat back and is supplied with the Saflex Booster. If your seat cannot meet Standard 213's requirements with only a lap/shoulder belt, it could not be certified as complying with the standard and thus may not be sold.

The second concern relates to the possibility that a child positioned on the Saflex Booster could be ejected under the lap belt portion of the seat belt assembly (feet first) in a crash. We raise this concern because the booster seat can elevate a child four to 12 inches off the vehicle seat. Crash forces could compress the booster, which could result in excessive slack in the vehicle belt system. Standard 213 requires booster seats to limit head and knee excursions of a restrained test dummy. If the Saflex Booster does not meet the excursion limits, it cannot be certified as complying with Standard 213.

We have enclosed a copy of Standard 213 for your information. We have also enclosed as an information sheet that briefly describes manufacturers' responsibilities under Federal law for manufacturing vehicles and items of equipment, such as the responsibility to ensure these products do not have any safety-related defects.

We strongly encourage the marketplace development of any system that can increase safety. While we are concerned that your device may not keep children from being injured by air bags and may not comply with FMVSS No. 213, we encourage your continued interest.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:213
d:6/2/97

ID: 15117.ztv

Mr. Ben Reginella, P. Eng.
Algonquin Automotive
1 Crescent Road
Huntsville
Ontario P1H 1Z6
Canada

Dear Mr. Reginella

This is in reply to your letter of April 29, 1997, requesting an interpretation of the term "overall width" as the phrase is used in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You have asked whether "the painted flexible flares" you describe qualify as "flexible" and hence may be excluded from the calculation of overall width. You are developing a trim kit for the Dodge T300 Ram Truck which includes painted flexible flares along with running boards, and have enclosed photos of the flare in question..

"Overall Width" is defined in Note 1 to Standard No. 108 as "the nominal design dimension of the widest part of the vehicle, exclusive of signal lamps, marker lamps, outside rearview mirrors, flexible fender extensions, and mud flaps, determined with doors and windows closed and the wheels in the straight-ahead position." We confirm that the "flexible flare" shown in your photographs is a "flexible fender extension" within the meaning of the term as used in Standard No. 108's definition of overall width, and may be excluded from the calculation of the overall width of any vehicle upon which it is installed.

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-3820).

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d:5/22/97

ID: 15120rea.r2

William Shapiro, P.E.
Manager, Regulatory Compliance
and Environmental Affairs
Volvo Cars of North America, Inc.
7 Volvo Dr.
Rockleigh, N.J. 07647-0913

Dear Mr. Shapiro:

This responds to your April 29, 1997, letter asking whether Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems," would prohibit you from producing a rear-facing child restraint for older children (weighing more than 20 pounds). You state: "Volvo strongly believes that children weighing up to 40 pounds are provided the greatest injury protection when riding in rear-facing child restraints...."

Standard 213 does not prohibit a manufacturer from recommending a rear-facing child restraint for children weighing more than 20 pounds (lb.). However, in making its certification of compliance with the standard, the manufacturer must ensure that the restraint meets the requirements of Standard 213 when tested in accordance with the test procedures specified in the standard. Under S7 of the standard, any child restraint that is recommended for use by children from birth to 40 lb. is tested with test dummies representing a newborn infant (see S7.1(a)), a 9-month-old (S7.1(b)) and a 3-year-old child (S7.1(c)).⁽¹⁾ The rear-facing restraint must be able to accommodate each of the dummies and meet the performance criteria of the standard when tested with the dummies.

I have enclosed copies of letters dated April 22, 1992, to Mark Sedlack of Century Products Company and August 18, 1992, to Timber Dick of Safeline Children's Products Company, concerning the testing of a rear-facing child restraint recommended for children weighing up to 25 lb. (Note that at the date of these letters, Standard 213 incorporated a 6-month-old child dummy and used different weight categories than the current standard. The standard was amended, effective September 1, 1996, to incorporate, inter alia, a newborn, 9-month-old and 6-year-old dummy and to delete the 6-month-old dummy. New weight categories were also adopted, e.g., the smallest dummy (infant) is used for testing a restraint recommended for children weighing up to 22 lb., rather than 20 lb.)

That the rear-facing restraint must be able to accommodate the 3-year-old dummy is explained at length in the letters. Our position has not changed. If the rear-facing child restraint does not physically permit the 3-year-old dummy to be positioned rear-facing in accordance with the dummy positioning procedures of the standard, the restraint cannot be tested in accordance with the standard and thus cannot be certified as complying with the standard. Accordingly, the restraint cannot be recommended by its manufacturer for children weighing more than 22 lb. We understand that since receiving our letters, Century and Safeline have been or will be producing convertible child restraints that are recommended for use rear-facing by children weighing up to about 30 lb. (A convertible restraint is designed for use rear-facing by infants and forward-facing by toddlers.)

You ask whether the labeling requirements of S5.5.2(k)(1)(i) and (k)(2)(i) of Standard 213 in effect require that restraints that are designed to be rear-facing with older children can only be infant or convertible restraints and cannot be "rear-facing only child restraints." The answer is no. However, we understand why you ask this; S5.5.2(k)(1)(i) specifies labeling requirements for each rear-facing child restraint system "that is designed for infants only," and S5.5.2(k)(2)(i) specifies requirements for each "child restraint system that is designed to be used rearward-facing for infants and forward facing for older children." (Emphases added.)

These paragraphs were not intended to prohibit your restraint. Until February 1995, S5.5.2(k) specified requirements for "each child restraint system that can be used in a rear-facing position," which on its face included restraints such as yours. You would have been required to state either "PLACE THIS INFANT RESTRAINT IN A REAR-FACING POSITION WHEN USING IT IN THE VEHICLE," or "PLACE THIS CHILD RESTRAINT IN A REAR-FACING POSITION WHEN USING IT WITH AN INFANT WEIGHING LESS THAN (insert a weight that is not less than 20 pounds)." The language was changed in 1995 to the language quoted above in S5.5.2(k)(1)(i) and (2)(i) in response to requests to clarify and expand on the air bag warning label requirement (60 FR 7461, February 8, 1995). The change differentiated between infant-only restraints and convertibles, because those were the types of rear-facing restraints that were available at the time. The agency did not intend to limit rear-facing restraints to infant-only and convertibles.

While we agree that Standard 213 imposes no directional positioning labeling requirements for your particular system, we recommend that a rear-facing child restraint for older children should nonetheless be labeled with a warning that the restraint must be rear-facing when carrying infants, e.g., "PLACE THIS RESTRAINT IN A REAR-FACING POSITION WHEN USING IT WITH AN INFANT." Because your restraint is also designed for use rear-facing with older children, you should have clear labeling warning against misuse of the restraint in the forward-facing position.

We note also that under S5.5.2(k)(4) and (k)(5) of Standard 213, "each child restraint system that can be used in a rear-facing position" must have the air bag warning label described in those sections. This requirement applies on its face to rear-facing only child restraints for older children. Thus, your restraint must have the label depicted in Figure 10 of Standard 213, with the pictogram and required heading and wording.

If you need further assistance, please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:213
d.7/25/97

1. Under S7 of Standard 213, a restraint that is recommended for children weighing more than 40 lb. is tested with a 6-year-old child dummy.

ID: 15121.wkm

Mr. Robert O. Martin
Division Vice President
Corporate Quality Assurance Division
Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.
50 Century Boulevard
Nashville, TN 37214

Dear Mr. Martin:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter addressed to Walter Myers of my staff, in which you asked whether you may install light truck (LT) metric tires that comply with Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, and No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, on a "Presidential Limo" that you describe as "basically a modified passenger vehicle." The installation of LT tires would not be permitted on a passenger car under the provisions of FMVSS No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims.

NHTSA defines a "passenger car" as "a motor vehicle. . ., except a multipurpose passenger vehicle, motorcycle, or trailer, designed for carrying 10 persons or less." A "multipurpose passenger vehicle" (MPV) is one designed to carry 10 persons or less but which "is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." Finally, a motor vehicle, except a trailer, designed to carry more than 10 persons is classified as a bus.

You did not specify the original vehicle that you modified to create the presidential limo, other than to call it a modified passenger vehicle, nor did you describe the modifications you made to it. All the vehicles described in the previous paragraph are passenger vehicles, but each has different functions, classifications, and requirements. Thus, the classification of the basic vehicle determines which set of tire requirements apply to it.

If you "stretched" a passenger car, for example, or if you modified a passenger car other than by stretching it, the issue then becomes whether the vehicle as modified is still a passenger car or whether it should be recertified as a different type of vehicle. If it still carries 10 persons or less or if it has not become an MPV, it retains its classification as a passenger car. Paragraph S4.1 of FMVSS No. 110 states that passengers cars must be equipped with tires that meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires. Installation of tires certified as complying with FMVSS No. 119 is not permitted on passenger cars because of the high speed performance test required of passenger car tires but not of LT tires. Specifically, paragraph S4.2.2.6 of FMVSS No. 109 requires that passenger car tires be subjected to a high speed test, while paragraph S6.3 of FMVSS No. 119 applies the high speed test only to motorcycle tires and "non-speed-restricted tires of 14.5-in nominal rim diameter or less marked load range A, B, C, or D." We can assume that a stretched limo, in at least a few situations, may be driven at high speeds. If, on the other hand, the original vehicle was certified as an MPV, truck, or bus, FMVSS No. 120 specifies that tires that comply with either FMVSS Nos. 109 or 119 may be installed on it, provided that if passenger car tires under FMVSS No. 109 are installed on it, they would be subject to the 10 percent load rating correction factor specified in paragraph S5.1.2 of FMVSS No. 120.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any questions or require any further information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:109#110#119#120
d.10/1/97

ID: 15203a.mls

Mr. John Gano
The Gradall Company
406 Mill Avenue S.W.
New Philadelphia, OH 44663

Dear Mr. Gano:

This responds to your inquiry about whether hydraulic excavators are motor vehicles that would have to comply with the applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. According to your letter, the excavators are "mobile, multi-purpose construction machines capable of incidental travel on and off highway as a means of getting to and from the location of their primary function" of hydraulic excavation. You state that the machines are not equipped with drive train ratios, engine power or suspension systems that are typical of on-highway vehicles. You further state that a typical excavator "is anticipated to accumulate approximately 3000 miles annually with 20% spent on secondary roads and highways and 80% spent off-highway."

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) interprets and enforces the laws under which the Federal motor vehicle safety standards are promulgated. NHTSA's statute defines the term "motor vehicle" as follows:

"Any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails."

It is the agency's position that this statutory definition does not encompass mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, which use the highway only to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site. In such cases, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. In contrast are instances where vehicles, such as dump trucks, frequently use the highway going to and from job sites, and stay at a job site for only a limited time. Such vehicles are considered motor vehicles, since the on-highway use is more than "incidental."

Based on the information you provided, it appears that the various hydraulic excavators you describe are not "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the statutory definition.

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:VSA
d.7/7/97