NHTSA Interpretation File Search
Overview
NHTSA's Chief Counsel interprets the statutes that the agency administers and the standards and regulations that it issues. Members of the public may submit requests for interpretation, and the Chief Counsel will respond with a letter of interpretation. These interpretation letters look at the particular facts presented in the question and explain the agency’s opinion on how the law applies given those facts. These letters of interpretation are guidance documents. They do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. They are intended only to provide information to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.
Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
NHTSA makes its letters of interpretation available to the public on this webpage.
An interpretation letter represents the opinion of the Chief Counsel based on the facts of individual cases at the time the letter was written. While these letters may be helpful in determining how the agency might answer a question that another person has if that question is similar to a previously considered question, do not assume that a prior interpretation will necessarily apply to your situation.
- Your facts may be sufficiently different from those presented in prior interpretations, such that the agency's answer to you might be different from the answer in the prior interpretation letter;
- Your situation may be completely new to the agency and not addressed in an existing interpretation letter;
- The agency's safety standards or regulations may have changed since the prior interpretation letter was written so that the agency's prior interpretation no longer applies; or
- Some combination of the above, or other, factors.
Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files
Before beginning a search, it’s important to understand how this online search works. Below we provide some examples of searches you can run. In some cases, the search results may include words similar to what you searched because it utilizes a fuzzy search algorithm.
Single word search
Example: car
Result: Any document containing that word.
Multiple word search
Example: car seat requirements
Result: Any document containing any of these words.
Connector word search
Example: car AND seat AND requirements
Result: Any document containing all of these words.
Note: Search operators such as AND or OR must be in all capital letters.
Phrase in double quotes
Example: "headlamp function"
Result: Any document with that phrase.
Conjunctive search
Example: functionally AND minima
Result: Any document with both of those words.
Wildcard
Example: headl*
Result: Any document with a word beginning with those letters (e.g., headlamp, headlight, headlamps).
Example: no*compl*
Result: Any document beginning with the letters “no” followed by the letters “compl” (e.g., noncompliance, non-complying).
Not
Example: headlamp NOT crash
Result: Any document containing the word “headlamp” and not the word “crash.”
Complex searches
You can combine search operators to write more targeted searches.
Note: The database does not currently support phrase searches with wildcards (e.g., “make* inoperative”).
Example: Headl* AND (supplement* OR auxiliary OR impair*)
Result: Any document containing words that are variants of “headlamp” (headlamp, headlights, etc.) and also containing a variant of “supplement” (supplement, supplemental, etc.) or “impair” (impair, impairment, etc.) or the word “auxiliary.”
Search Tool
NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search
| Interpretations | Date | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| search results table | |||||||||||
ID: ConductorsAlliancedrnOpen
Mr. Robert Strassburger Dear Mr. Strassburger: This responds to your letter (Docket 15712-9) asking us to reevaluate the November 26, 2002, and July 23, 2003, interpretation letters that we issued to Mr. Larry Costa of Costa Industries, concerning whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, as amended on July 25, 2003 (68 FR 43964)(Docket No. 15712), further amended September 26, 2003 (68 FR 55544), January 5, 2004 (69 FR 279), August 18, 2004 (69 FR 51188), and July 12, 2005 (70 FR 39959), requires glazing fracture testing to be conducted with conductors or any other components attached. We have developed the enclosed paper, "The Definition of Conductor in Fracture, Test 7 of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996, Incorporated by Reference into FMVSS No. 205". This paper clarifies the meaning of "conductors" and "terminals" and distinguishes between the terms. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Enclosure The Definition of "Conductor" in "Fracture, Test 7" of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996,
|
2006 | ||||||||||
ID: ConductorsDaimlerChryslerdrnOpen
Stephan P. Speth, Director Dear Mr. Speth: This responds to your letter (Docket 15712-3) asking us to reevaluate the November 26, 2002 and July 23, 2003 interpretation letters that we issued to Mr. Larry Costa of Costa Industries, concerning whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, as amended on July 25, 2003 (68 FR 43964)(Docket No. 15712), further amended September 26, 2003 (68 FR 55544), January 5, 2004 (69 FR 279), August 18, 2004 (69 FR 51188), and July 12, 2005 (70 FR 39959), requires glazing fracture testing to be conducted with conductors or any other components attached. We have developed the enclosed paper, "The Definition of Conductor in Fracture, Test 7 of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996, Incorporated by Reference into FMVSS No. 205". This paper clarifies the meaning of "conductors" and "terminals" and distinguishes between the terms. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Enclosure The Definition of "Conductor" in "Fracture, Test 7" of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996,
|
2006 | ||||||||||
ID: ConductorsGeneralMotorsdrnOpen
Lou Carlin, Director Dear Mr. Carlin: This responds to your letter (Docket 15712-5) asking us to reevaluate the November 26, 2002 and July 23, 2003, interpretation letters that we issued to Mr. Larry Costa of Costa Industries, concerning whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, as amended on July 25, 2003 (68 FR 43964)(Docket No. 15712), further amended September 26, 2003 (68 FR 55544), January 5, 2004 (69 FR 279), August 18, 2004 (69 FR 51188), and July 12, 2005 (70 FR 39959), requires glazing fracture testing to be conducted with conductors or any other components attached. We have developed the enclosed paper, "The Definition of Conductor in Fracture, Test 7 of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996, Incorporated by Reference into FMVSS No. 205". This paper clarifies the meaning of "conductors" and "terminals" and distinguishes between the terms. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Enclosure The Definition of "Conductor" in "Fracture, Test 7" of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996,
|
2006 | ||||||||||
ID: ConductorsPilkingtondrnOpen
Joseph E. Poley, Senior Research Associate Dear Mr. Poley: This responds to your letter (Docket 15712-4) asking us to reevaluate the November 26, 2002 and July 23, 2003 interpretation letters that we issued to Mr. Larry Costa of Costa Industries, concerning whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, as amended on July 25, 2003 (68 FR 43964)(Docket No. 15712), further amended September 26, 2003 (68 FR 55544), January 5, 2004 (69 FR 279), August 18, 2004 (69 FR 51188), and July 12, 2005 (70 FR 39959), requires glazing fracture testing to be conducted with conductors or any other components attached. We have developed the enclosed paper, "The Definition of Conductor in Fracture, Test 7 of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996, Incorporated by Reference into FMVSS No. 205". This paper clarifies the meaning of conductors and terminals and distinguishes between the terms. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Enclosure The Definition of "Conductor" in "Fracture, Test 7" of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996,
|
2006 | ||||||||||
ID: ConductorsPPGdrnOpen
John P. Banks, Director Dear Mr. Banks: This responds to your letter (Docket 15712-6) asking us to reevaluate the November 26, 2002 and July 23, 2003 interpretation letters that we issued to Mr. Larry Costa of Costa Industries, concerning whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, as amended on July 25, 2003 (68 FR 43964)(Docket No. 15712), further amended September 26, 2003 (68 FR 55544), January 5, 2004 (69 FR 279), August 18, 2004 (69 FR 51188), and July 12, 2005 (70 FR 39959), requires glazing fracture testing to be conducted with conductors or any other components attached. We have developed the enclosed paper, "The Definition of Conductor in Fracture, Test 7 of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996, Incorporated by Reference into FMVSS No. 205."This paper clarifies the meaning of "conductors" and "terminals" and distinguishes between the terms. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Enclosure The Definition of "Conductor" in "Fracture, Test 7" of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996,
|
2006 | ||||||||||
ID: 1985-03.29OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 08/13/85 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA TO: Mr. Robert D. Bagg TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: Thank you for your letter of July 5, 1985, to Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning Federal regulations that might affect a product you have developed. The information submitted with your letter describes the product as a collapsible partition that attaches to the rear of the front seat in a motor vehicle. The purpose of your product is to keep heat within the front portion of a car. The following discussion provides an explanation of how our standards would affect a device such as yours. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes our agency to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that apply to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. We have issued several standards that apply or affect the use of your product. First, we have issued Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which applies to all glazing installed in a motor vehicle, including the glazing used in an interior partition. Standard No. 205 incorporates by reference Standard ANS Z-26, "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highway," of the American National Standard Institute. A copy of Standard No. 205 and ANS Z-26 are enclosed for your reference. Standard No. 205 specifies performance requirements for various types of glazing and also regulates the locations in vehicles in which each type of glazing may be used. The various types of glazing are designated as "Items" in the standard. Under the requirements of this standard, an interior partition to be used on a passenger vehicle at locations requisite for driving visibility, such as the device you have developed, may be manufactured out of either Item 1, Item 2, Item 4, Item 10, Item 11A, or Item 14 glazing materials. Safety Standard No. 205 also sets forth specific certification and marking requirements for glazing materials. The marking requirements for prime glazing material manufacturers (i.e. those who fabricate, laminate, or temper the glazing material) are set out in paragraph S6.1 of the standard. In addition, section 6.3 of the standard requires each item of motor vehicle equipment to be certified pursuant to section 114 of the Vehicle Safety Act. Section 114 provides that an item of motor vehicle equipment may be certified by means of a label or tag on the item or on the outside of the container in which the equipment is delivered. The label or tag must state that the item of motor vehicle equipment complies with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards, which in this case would be Standard No. 205. Under Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act, new motor vehicle equipment, such as interior partitions, must comply with applicable safety standards prior to sale. The manufacture, sale, or installation of a partition that does not conform to the standard, or the installation of a partition in a new vehicle in a location that is not authorized in Standard No. 205, would be in a violation of Section 108(a)(1)(A). Under Section 109(a), anyone who sells motor vehicle equipment which does not conform to all applicable safety standards is subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. Installation of your device could also be affected by Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact. Section 3.2 of Standard No. 201, sets energy-absorption requirements for the back of the front seat to protect the heads of rear seat occupants thrown forward in a crash. A copy of Standard No. 201 is enclosed for your reference. Therefore, if your device were installed in a new vehicle prior to its first sale to a consumer, the manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle, as equipped, complies with all standard including Standard No. 201. Installation of your product in a used vehicle could be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. In 1974, Congress amended the Vehicle Safety Act to address the problem of persons tampering with safety equipment. That section provides, in part, that: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . . Thus, no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may add your product to a motor vehicle, if that action would "render inoperative" the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 201. The Vehicle Safety Act provides for civil penalties for persons that "render inoperative" an element of a safety standard. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act does not apply to individual vehicle owners. Thus, individual vehicle owners can, themselves, add your product to their vehicles without violating Federal law. However, installation of your product by individual owners would have to be done in accordance with applicable State law. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment also have responsibilities under the Vehicle Safety Act regarding safety defects and noncompliances in their products. Under Sections 151 et seg., they must notify purchasers about safety-related defects and noncompliances and remedy the product free of charge. Again, Section 109(a) imposes a civil penalty upon any person who fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect or noncompliance in motor vehicle equipment. A copy of the Vehicle Safety act and an information sheet outlining the responsibilities of vehicle and equipment manufacturers is enclosed. We hope you find this information helpful. Please contact this office if you have any more questions. ENCLS. 7/5/85 Dear Mr. Each, In a mush as I didn't talk to you over phone, I'm sending this copy of Invention What I would like to know is, would this most the gov't requirement legally to use in vehicles. Before the manufacture and what. I would like advise. RoBagg OHEONTA, N.Y. Dat# 3,002,784 OCC 0944 FIG.1. FIG.2. FIG.4. FIG.3. FIG.5. (Graphics omitted) INVENTOR. Robert D. Bagg By: L. S. Saulsbury. ATTORNEY Robert D. Bagg An Automobile Heat Saver Partition (One Sheet of Drawing) This invention relates to an automobile heat saver partition. It is the principal object of this invention to provide a collapsible partition for automobiles adapted to be located in the automobile and attached to the rear of the front seat so as to keep the heat of the automobile within the front seat space thereby eliminating the necessity of heating the rear seat space when vacant so that the driver will be supplied with adequate heat during cold weather with below zero temperatures. It is another object of the invention to provide a partition for automobiles which has a transparent top piece so that the partition while located in the rear of the driver will not impair the visibility of the driver through the rear view mirror. It is still another object of the invention to provide a heat saving partition for automobiles that is collapsible so that it can be stored easily in the trunk of the automobile when not in use or even left standing in a collapsed condition in rear of the front seat when not in use. It is a further object of the invention to provide a heat saving partition for automobiles that can be attached to the rear of the front seat and supported therefrom by a simple strap. It is a still further object of the invention to provide a heat saving partition for automobiles which will be made up in the form of a kit of few tube parts which can be readily assembled and fitted to one another and attached to the front seat of the automobile, and that is easy to disassemble and put into storage, the same consuming little space when disassembled. Other objects of the invention are to provide a collapsible heat saver partition for automobiles, having the above objects in mind, which is of simple construction, inexpensive to manufacture, has a minimum number of parts, light in weight, easy to assemble, durable, of pleasing appearance, effective and efficient in use. For other objects and a better understanding of the invention, reference may be had to the following detailed description taken in connection with the accompanying drawing, in which Figure 1 is a side elevational view of a heat saver partition installed in an automobile upon the rear of the front seat thereof and constructed according to one form of the invention. Fig. 2 is a perspective view of the partition and the seat to which it is attached by a strap, Fig. 3 is an enlarged vertical sectional view of the partition as viewed on line 3-3 of Fig. 2 with illustration made as to the manner in which the partition may be collapsed, Fig. 4 is a vertical perspective view of a heat saving partition formed of a plurality of tube parts according to another form of the invention, and Fig. 5 is an exploded view of the partition shown in Fig. 4 and illustrating the manner in which they are assembled to one another. Referring now particularly to Figs. 1 to 3, 10 generally represents the collapsible partition constructed according to one form of the invention comprising a bottom section 11 and a top frame 12 with a transparent window 13 therein and hingedly connected to the upper end of the lower section by hinges 14 and 15 so that the upper frame section 12 can be collapsed downwardly over the rear face of the lower section 11 at times when the rear seat space is to be heated as illustrated in Fig. 3 at 12' or when the partition is to be stored in the trunk space. Strap parts 16 and 17 are extended about the front seat to hold the partition against the rear face of the front seat. The window frame section 12 is held in its elevated position by a turn knob 18 secured to the lower section 11 on a pivot pin 19 near to the upper edge thereof and adapted when turned to overlie the lower edge to extend upwardly over the lower edge of the frame section 12 whereby the upper section will be held in its extended and raised position. The lower edge of the section 11 is cut away at 20 to accommodate the shaft hump in the floor of the automobile. The partition may be made of cardboard, plywood, plastic or metal. Referring now particularly to Figs. 4 and 5, the partition is made up of aluminum tube parts. Pipe leg supports 22 and 23 have fitted to their upper ends thereof a transverse member 24 by its sockets 25 and 26 to the upper ends of which there is fitted legs 27 and 28 of a U-shaped member having a top portion 29. An elongated transparent plastic sleeve 30 shaped to conform to the U-shaped member is slid downwardly over the top portion 29 to provide a window partition through which the drivercan see. Plastic sleeve 30 is closed at the top and shaped to conform to the rounded ends of the top portion 29 of the U-shaped member. Separable straps 31 and 32 are respectively secured to the leg extensions 22 and 23 and can be fastened together by a buckle 33 about the front of the automobile seat in the manner illustrated in Fig. 4. In both forms of the invention the upper section or part of the partition is contoured to conform to the upper interior of the automobile. It should now be apparent that there has been provided a heat saver partition for automobiles that can be collapsed or disassembled when not being used and which can be easily assembled, upon the rear of the front seat by simply connecting together straps about the front seat. The legs and the transverse member constitute a lower section and the U-shape member with the transparent sleeve 30 constitute the upper section. While various changes may be made in the detailed construction, it shall be understood that such changes shall be within the spirit and scope of the present invention as defined by the appended claims. WHAT IS CLAIMED IS: 1. A heat saver partition for automobiles comprising a lower section, strap means for detachably securing the lower section to the rear of and about the front seat of the automobile, a transparent second section releasably connected to the lower section and adapted to be elevated or lowered therefrom to provide a closure for the upper portion of the automobiles interior, said upper section conforming generally thereto. 2. A heat saver partition for automobiles as defined in claim 1, said upper section being hingedly connected to the upper edge of the lower section and adapted to be collapsed downwardly thereover, and latch means for securing the upper section in its elevated position from the lower section. 3. A heat saver partition for automobiles as defined in claim 2, and said lower section being cut away to accommodate the shaft hump on the floor of the automobile. 4. A heat saver partition for automobiles as defined in claim 1, and said lower section formed of vertical pipes and a transverse member having sockets fitted to the upper ends of the pipes, and said upper section comprising a U-shaped member having legs adapted to be tight fitted into the sockets of the transverse member, and a transparent member conforming to the shape of the U-shaped member and slide fitted downwardly thereover. |
|||||||||||
ID: 571.205 Plexiglass Barriers (002)OpenMr. Mike Collingwood Illinois Department of Transportation 2300 South Dirksen Parkway, Room 305 Springfield, IL 62764 August 11, 2020
Dear Mr. Collingwood: This responds to your two inquiries to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) about the installation of barriers in school buses to minimize the spread of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). In your June 16, 2020 email, you ask about the installation of “plexiglass barriers” installed to the right of, and behind, the driver’s seating position. In a later email, you ask about the installation of clear plastic “soft shields” that would be installed to the immediate right of and behind the driver, and/or installed throughout the passenger compartment by attachment to the interior roof of the school bus and to the seat backs of the passenger seats. As explained below, NHTSA’s regulations would permit the installation of the barriers, subject to the requirements discussed in this letter. Please note that our answer below is based on our understanding of the specific information provided in your email. This interpretation letter does not have the force and effect of law and is not meant to bind the public in any way. This letter is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing requirements under the law, and represents the opinion of the agency on the questions addressed in your email at the time of signature. Background NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act requires manufacturers to self-certify that their vehicles and equipment conform to all applicable FMVSS in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA also investigates safety- related defects. Based on your description of the barriers and the photos you provided, the plexiglass material of the barrier and transparent flexible material of the shield would be motor vehicle “glazing” that must comply with FMVSS No. 205, “Glazing materials.” FMVSS No. 205 applies to glazing installed in motor vehicles prior to first purchase and to aftermarket glazing for use in motor vehicles. The standard incorporates by reference an industry standard, the “American National Standards Institute American National Standard for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment Operating on Land Highways-Safety Standard” (ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996). FMVSS No. 205 and ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 specify performance requirements for various types of glazing, called “Items,” and specify the locations in vehicles in which each item of glazing may be used. As motor vehicle glazing, the transparent material of the barrier or shield must meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 205 and be certified as meeting that standard by the prime glazing manufacturer, and, if applicable, the manufacturer or distributor who cuts the glazing into components for use in motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. If an entity, in assembling the barrier or shield, cuts the glazing, it must ensure the glazing meets the requirements of FMVSS No. 205, and must certify its compliance pursuant to S6.3 of FMVSS No. 205.1 Anyone who assembles and markets an aftermarket barrier or shield would be a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment and be responsible for ensuring the product is free from safety-related defects. If the assembler or NHTSA finds the product to contain a safety-related defect, the assembler would be responsible for conducting a recall campaign as required under 49 U.S.C. §§ 30118-30120. Discussion Plexiglass Barriers. You ask about plexiglass barriers installed in school buses to the right of and just behind the driver. Assuming the barriers are comprised of plexiglass (or similarly rigid transparent material), NHTSA would consider them to be “interior partitions.”2 This classification is important as it, along with the location of the glazing in the vehicle, determines which types of glazing may be used. Depending upon where the glazing is placed, it may be considered “requisite for driving visibility” and subject to heightened requirements. On buses, the windows deemed requisite for driving visibility are windows to the immediate right or left of the driver and the front windshield.3 (Any portion of glazing that the driver would have to see through to view the windows requisite for driving visibility would also be considered requisite for driving visibility.) You describe the barriers as being located to the right of the driver and immediately behind the driver. Of these locations, only the first would be considered requisite for driving visibility on buses. Glazing for interior partitions on buses in areas requisite for driving visibility must be of one of the following types of glazing: Items 1, 2, 4, 4A, 10, 11A, 11C, 14, 15A, or 15B. This means the part of the barrier to the right of the driver must be of the items listed above. Interior partitions in areas not requisite for driving visibility have additional compliance options, and may also be made of one of following types of glazing: Items 3, 5, 11B, 12, 13, 16A, or 16B. This means the part of the partition immediately behind the driver may be any of the above items.
1On the other hand, if the entity only assembles the barrier using pre-cut glazing that has been certified by a glazing manufacturer, it is not required to certify the glazing. 2 See letter to Ms. Lee Ann Sparks, (June 4, 2020) available at https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/571-205- Driver%20Shield%20for%20Buses%20and%20Vans_final%20signed%20(002).htm. 3 In a letter to Cris Morgan (January 14, 2009), NHTSA concluded that low-level glazing on doors to the right or left of the driver are considered windows that are requisite for driving visibility. Therefore, glazing through which the driver would view these windows would be considered requisite for driving visibility. https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/08-004149--19%20Nov%2008--sa.htm.
Soft Shields. You ask about “soft shields” installed in school buses that would be installed to the right of and behind the driver or installed in the passenger compartment by attachment to the interior roof of the school bus and to the seat backs of the passenger seats. Based on photos of the soft shields, and assuming they are comprised of flexible transparent material, NHTSA would consider them to be “flexible curtains.” Again, this classification is important for FMVSS No. 205, as it, along with the location of the glazing in the vehicle, determines which types of glazing may be used. The photos you provide show that the shields would be installed to the right of the driver or immediately behind the driver, and/or installed between each row of seats by attachment to the interior roof of the school bus and to the seat backs of the passenger seats. Of these locations, only the location to the right of the driver would be considered requisite for driving visibility. Glazing for flexible curtains on buses in areas requisite for driving visibility must be of one of the following types of glazing: Items 1, 2, 4, 4A, 6, 10, 11A, 11C, 14, 15A, or 15B. This means the soft shield to the right of the driver must be of the items listed above. However, although these Items of glazing are permitted for use as flexible curtains, the only appropriate Item for the pliable plastic shown in the photos may be Item 6. Some of the requirements for certain Items may necessitate a level of rigidity that a soft plastic cannot provide. Some Items of glazing, such as Item 6, have requirements that were designed specifically for flexible plastics. Glazing for flexible curtains in buses in areas not requisite for driving visibility must be one of the following types of glazing: Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 4A, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11A, 11B, 11C, 12, 13, 14, 15A, 15B, 16A, or 16B. Accordingly, the part of the flexible curtain for any location behind the driver and in the passenger compartment must be of these items. Of these permissible Items of glazing, Items 6, 7, and 13 may be the only appropriate ones for the soft, pliable plastic shown in the photos you provide. Soft, pliable glazing may not be able to meet the requirements for certain Items of glazing because they do not provide a level of rigidity that is necessary for meeting some of the requirements. However, Items 6, 7, and 13, have requirements that were designed specifically for flexible plastics. Other requirements. There may be additional requirements applying to the installation of the partition or curtain (“glazing”) depending on the entity installing it. If the glazing is installed on a new bus prior to first vehicle sale for purposes other than resale, the installer must ensure that, with the glazing installed, the vehicle complies with FMVSS No. 205 and all other applicable FMVSS, and must certify the vehicle as complying with all FMVSS affected by the installation. If the glazing is installed as aftermarket equipment by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, rental company, or motor vehicle repair business, that entity would be subject to 49 U.S.C. 30122, which prohibits the entity from knowingly making inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. In both cases, the entity installing the glazing must ensure that installation of the partition does not: (1) take the vehicle out of compliance with or make inoperative systems installed pursuant to FMVSS No. 222, “School bus passenger seating and crash protection;” (2) impact the vehicle’s compliance with or make inoperative systems installed pursuant to FMVSS No. 302, “Flammability of interior materials;” (3) prevent the driver and passengers from readily accessing emergency exits installed in compliance with or make inoperative systems installed pursuant to FMVSS No. 217, “Bus emergency exits and window retention and release;” (4) obstruct the driver’s view of the mirrors and/or rearview image required under FMVSS No. 111, “Rear visibility;” or (5) impede the driver’s ability to see through the windows needed for driving visibility. Visibility is particularly important for school buses, as not only are school buses engaged in the transportation of children, they also make frequent stops. Installers should ensure that installation of a partition or curtain, particularly one situated in an area requisite for driving visibility, does not create glare or otherwise reduce the driver’s ability to see embarking and disembarking students and other road users. Regarding how the installation of the glazing affects compliance with FMVSS No. 222’s head protection requirements, S5.3.1 of FMVSS No. 222 establishes head protection requirements for “contactable surfaces” within the head protection zone defined by S5.3.1.1. The head protection zone is determined based on seating references points. This means that each seat in a school bus has its own head impact protection zone. As an example, a partition that is installed directly behind the driver is likely to fall within the head protection zone for the seat directly behind the driver. Partitions installed to the right of the driver may also partially fall within the head protection zones for the seat directly behind the driver. If the partition is installed prior to first purchase, the installer must ensure that the vehicle will meet FMVSS No. 222 with the glazing installed. If the head impact protection requirements cannot be met for that first row of seats with the partition installed, the installer might have to remove the first row and move the FMVSS No. 222 restraining barrier rearward such that the bus provides proper compartmentalization for what would be the new (reconfigured) first row. This modification would ensure that the partition is no longer within the head protection zone of any of the school bus seats. If the partition is installed after first purchase by an entity subject to the make inoperative provision in 49 U.S.C. 30122, the installer may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in the school bus pursuant to FMVSS No. 222. School buses are required to have passenger seating systems designed to afford impact protection to occupants. Installation of the partition may affect this element of design (compartmentalization) for the front row of seats by impairing the seat’s head impact protection. To avoid this result, the installer may need to remove the first row of seats and move the FMVSS No. 222 restraining barrier rearward such that the bus provides proper compartmentalization for what would be the new (reconfigured) first row. Entities modifying their own school buses are not subject to Federal restrictions on “making inoperative” the safety systems on their vehicles. However, NHTSA recommends that owners not degrade the safety systems provided on their vehicles. Thus, we recommend that schools take measures to ensure that students will not occupy seats that have compromised head protection zones. For example, if a school installs a partition that will be in the head impact zone, the school can mitigate risk by not allowing students to sit in those first-row seats. It appears from the photos you sent that the flexible curtain is a “soft shield” made from pliable plastic. Even though the curtains would likely fall within the head protection zones when installed forward of each passenger seat, it does not appear to have an adverse effect on school bus compliance with FMVSS No. 222’s head protection requirements. In addition to the above, please note that the installation of the barrier may be subject to State laws or regulations. School bus operators should contact their local highway safety office for information governing how school children should be transported. 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 CHARLES MORRISON Digitally signed by JONATHAN CHARLES MORRISON Date: 2020.08.11 15:21:29 -04'00' Jonathan C. Morrison Chief Counsel
Dated: 8/11/20 Ref: FMVSS No.205 |
2020 | ||||||||||
ID: 30102 - What is a motor vehicle - Mac Yousry - 14-000891 5.1.14Open
Mr. Mac Yousry Global Vehicle Services Corporation 1892 N. Main St. Orange, CA 92865
Dear Mr. Yousry:
This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation as to whether a crane that manufacturer XCMG plans to import into the United States is considered a motor vehicle. Based on the information you have provided, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not consider this mobile construction crane to be a motor vehicle.
You have enclosed technical specifications with photographs and detailed descriptions that discuss the crane at issuethe XCMG XCT90U. You provided supplementary information during phone conversations with Ryan Hagen of my office.
By way of background information, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Vehicle Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.) NHTSA has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of any motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, it is a manufacturers responsibility to determine whether a motor vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSSs and regulations, and to certify its products in accordance with that determination. The Vehicle Safety Act considers importers to be manufacturers. Manufacturers (importers) must also ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects. The following interpretation represents the agency's opinion based on the information provided in your letter.
If a vehicle is a motor vehicle, it must comply with all applicable FMVSSs to be imported into the United States (Vehicle Safety Act, 30112(a)). The question presented is whether the XCMG XCT90U is a motor vehicle.
Section 30102(a)(6) of the Vehicle Safety Act defines "motor vehicle" as follows:
a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.
We have issued a number of interpretations of "motor vehicle." Whether the agency will consider a construction vehicle, or similar equipment, to be a motor vehicle depends on its use. We have stated that vehicles equipped with tracks, agricultural equipment, and other vehicles incapable of highway travel are not motor vehicles. We have also determined that certain vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not motor vehicles, even if they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Finally, we have concluded that items of mobile construction equipment that use the highways only to move between job sites and that typically spend extended periods of time at a single site are not motor vehicles because the highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental, and not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. However, we do consider vehicles that use the public roads on a necessary and recurring basis to be motor vehicles.
From your letter, specification sheet, and phone conversations, we understand the following about the XCT90U: It has a curb weight of 112,169 pounds and a top speed of 62.5 miles per hour. The crane is manufactured primarily for use on fixed job sites and only sees incidental road use for travel from one job site to another. The manufacturer estimates that a typical crane will travel 1,000 miles and service 15 job sites per year. The technical specifications state that the XCT90Us [m]ulti-axle plate spring balance suspension contributes to better passing ability
Some of the information about the XCT90U, such as the better passing ability and top speed, seem to indicate the vehicles use on the highway would be beyond incidental. However, given that the XCT90U would spend almost a month at a job site as well as other factors, we believe the on-road use of this equipment is not the primary purpose for which it was manufactured. Further, the XCT90Us boom specifications, lifting capacity, and overall appearance are similar to the crane evaluated in our letter to Mr. Michael E. Ogle, which we determined was not a motor vehicle.[1] Therefore, we do not consider the XCT90U to be a motor vehicle.
Please note that the views expressed in this letter are limited to the XCMG model XCT90U. This letter is not generally applicable to all XCMG vehicles. Our interpretation is based on the information you have provided us. In the event contrary information emerges, the agencys opinion is subject to change.
I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Ryan Hagen of my staff at (202) 366-2992.
Sincerely,
Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Dated: 6/10/15 49 U.S.C 30102
[1] See letter to Michael E. Ogle, Schiller International Corp. (October 20, 2003) (available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/004597drn.html). |
2015 | ||||||||||
ID: nht87-3.37OpenTYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 12/04/87 FROM: PAUL L. PETERSCHMIDT -- DIRECTOR, BIOMASS RESEARCH UNIVERSITY OF IOWA TO: GEORGE PARKER -- ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TITLE: NONE ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/24/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO KEITH E. MADDEN, REDBOOK A33(2), CUSTOM REGULATIONS; LETTER DATED 02/03/89 FROM KENNETH E. MADDEN TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, OCC 3106 TEXT: Dear Mr. Parker: This letter is in regard to importation of "Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment Subject to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards" (P.L. 89-563 Sects. 108 and 114, 19 C.F.R. 12.80) and related to DOT Form HS 7, Item 7. The vehicles involved in this request for importation would be classified (under Item 7) as being imported solely for the purpose of test and experiment. The purpose of this letter is to explain the objectives of our research program and the need for th is undertaking. BACKGROUND Brazil has in the order of 1.3 million vehicles on the road which are fueled by "neat" ethanol, which is also referred to as hydrous ethanol. The hydrous azeotropic product of ethanol distillation has to be dehydrated to the anhydrous form to be involve d in blending operations with gasoline in this country. The hydrous ethanol fuel for the Brazilian vehicles has a typical analysis of 95% ethanol and 5% water. Today the vast majority of the new over the road passenger vehicles and light trucks in Braz il are ethanol dedicated designs. The use of ethanol as the only fuel was inaugerated about ten years ago, and prompted by the lack of natural petroleum reserves in Brazil. The production of significant numbers of over the road passenger vehicles was in augerated in the early part of this decade, and the production rate has been increasing ever since. About 90% of Ford Brazil's over the road passenger car production models are ethanol fueled vehicles. During this period (the decade of the 1980's) little, if anything has been done to evaluate these vehicles in the U.S. in terms of performance, economics, exhaust gas composition, emission controls, fuel economy-ambient problems, durability, the material s of construction to accomodate the ethanol fuel, maintenance, power trained design, fuel composition (there are no denaturants used in Brazil), cold weather starting, hot weather Reed vapor pressure problems, etc. To our knowledge there has been practically no importation of these over the road ethanol vehicles primarily because of a lack of any comprehensive testing programs, and the lack of import approval by the EPA and the DOT. Also the provisions for either re-exporting the vehicles or destroying the vehicles after one year was an obvious deterrent. It is also significant that in the recent "Fuel Ethanol Cost-Effective Study" which was prepared by the National Advisory Panel on Cost Effectiveness of Fuel E thanol Production, published in November of 1987, the accompanying bibliography cited ten pages of references (125) and only one reference was a reference to Brazilian technology in ethanol vehicles. This one reference had to do with "Automotive Use of Alcohol in Brazil and Air Pollution Related Aspects. SAE Technical Paper 850390, February 1985." This University has been involved in research on the production economics of ethanol and utilization throughout this decade. In 1983 we were provided with a Ford-Brazilian designed prototype tractor (which was a modified 4600 design), one of seven in the world, which was ethanol fueled. We tested the unit under field operating conditions for approximately 20 months. The unit was considered a "dedicated" ethanol design and brought into this country by Ford Tractor operations at Troy, Michigan. The unit was equipped with a number of design features which enabled it to perform effectively in cold weather conditions. The tractor was placed on a research f arm operated by Pioneer Hi-Bred International near Iowa City and was used for farm tasks ranging from a feedlot operation through forage operation and silo filling. The unit was heavily instrumented and a large body of information collected involving cold and hot weather operating characteristics, and its general economy of operation was compared to conventional diesel fueled units that were performing similar tasks . Because of the prototype nature of the test unit, data was not published as Ford Tractor Operations was considering the potential sale of the design in this country. The unit did go into production in Brazil and eight production prototypes are in an evaluation program by the Illinois DOT. CURRENT SITUATION The units we wish to import will be either the F-100 Ford pickup (upon which you already have specifications) or the F-1000, which is about 3.6 liters and somewhat comparable to the Ford "Ranger" produced in this country. It should be pointed out tha t Ford Brazil has, as of the first of July merged with Volkswagen in Brazil. They have formed a company named "Auto-Latino". The company does produce some gasoline fueled vehicles that are imported into this country under the name of the Volkswagon Fox . The manager of Volkswagen altered the executive responsibilities of several of the people with whom we had maintained liaison at Ford Brazil. It should also be pointed out that we made our original inquiries to Ford Brazil over two years ago regardin g the importation of their over the road vehicles and obtained the necessary clearances that we needed from that end but we did not follow through on our programming of a test project because of lack of funds. The following is the program that we will m anage in the testing of the three vehicles we request approval to import. OBJECTIVES The overall efficiency of the dedicated ethanol fueled vehicles has been continually improving -- to a point where a 3 to 4% increase in efficiency would balance out the difference in BTU values of gasoline versus ethanol. (Gasoline being approximately 110,000 BTU and ethanol being approximately 85,000 BTU). * The dedicated ethanol spark injection engine had traditionally been more fuel efficient than its gasoline counterpart. * per U.S. Gallon The objective of this test is three-fold: 1. To determine the efficiency of the Brazilian units and what improvements might be made by the use of fuel injection, and alternate fuel composition. 2. To determine the operational economics of the Brazilian vehicles as compared to similar gasoline fueled vehicles, using current gasoline prices and current ethanol production costs. 3. Evaluate the ambient effects (particularly cold weather) on vehicle operation (particularly engine starting) and classify them as to degrees of difficulty and outline corrective measures. 4. Evaluate alternate fuel compositions (i.e. use of detergents as a denaturant). 5. Evaluate emissions and determine the need (if any) for control procedures. 6. Evaluate the procedures for fuel handling and establishing compliance with BATF. 7. Evaluate potential customer acceptance. 8. Set a time frame (if possible) for on going research or commercial development. TEST PROCEDURES The units would be tested in an agricultural environment for a number of reasons, among which is to minimize the problems of fuel handling. Typical farmers today will have at least two or possibly three fuels in storage (gasoline, diesel and LPG). The arrangement would eliminate the need for service station type distribution in the area. 1. Data Loging. Each research vehicle would be equipped with a Omnidata data loger which would have a 16 channel input with a 64,000 character storage and would be capable of monotoring the performance of the vehicle for a 20 hour period which would no rmally encompass two weeks of anticipated activity. Although not all of the specific inputs have been defined those that would be monitoroed include: RPM of the crank shaft (tachometer), RPM of the output shaft from the transmission, ground speed of the vehicle, fuel consumption rate, coolant temperature, outdoor ambient, exhaust manifold temperature, intake manifold temperature, fuel temperature, real time and combustion air intake temperature (for carbonated units). These readings would be sampled an d loged every 10 - 20 seconds. The data loger and the associated sensory equipment would be installed by the Automotive Technology Section of the Carroll branch of the Des Moines Area Community College (DEMAC). Every one or two weeks (depending on usage patterns) the data logers woul d be off loaded into a 1500 Zenith portable computer which is compatible to the data loger. This would be done at the Automotive and Agricultural Engineering Vocational Center at the Audubon Community High School in Audubon. The data from the Zenith un it would then be transfered to an IBM PC/AT at the Audubon Industrial Development Corporation for evaluation. 2. Fuel Analysis and Formulations. Preliminary arrangements have been made with a fuel alcohol plant, ADCII * at Hamburg, Iowa. This arrangement has been tentatively sanctioned by the BATF's regional office in Chicago. The hydrous ethanol fuel from t he ADCII would be sold to an ethonal fuels research company in the Audubon area which would have a permit from the BATF to do experimental research and evaluations of ethanol fuels. This would include analysis of denaturants that are inherent in the fue l prior to the cyclohexane or molecular sieve dehydration of the ethanol to the anhydrous form (which is the normal product sold by the Hamburg facility), detergents and other additives that would be incorporated in the fuel, which would then be evaluate d by the BATF to determine if these components would constitute a legal denaturant. * or ADC-II An analysis of performance of the U.S. fuel would be compared against the performances of the Brazilian fuel composition. To the extent possible an attempt would be made to emulate the conditions and analysis of the Brazilian produced hydrous ethanol fu el. 3. Maintenance Analysis. Periodically the units would be returned to the Automotive Technology Section of the Carroll Branch of DEMAC. Specialized personnel teaching courses in automotive technology will compare maintenance requirements with those tha t have been experienced by the Brazilian producers of the units. Particular attention would be given to the cold weather operating conditions to determine if the lower temperatures being experienced in Iowa would have any unusual effect upon normal engine performance. At the time the vehicles are acquired the Brazilian Manufacturer will recommend a package of spare parts that will be imported with the vehicles. 4. Emissions Testing. Equipment is being secured to enable emissions testing. This equipment was designed for conventional gasoline fueled vehicles. It is not known if this will be adequate to provide the necessary data for the EPA. It may be necessar y to ship emission samples to the University for a more detailed quantitative and qualitative analysis, particularly in regard to aldehydes. To our knowledge there is no testing equipment currently available that is designed specifically for ethanol fue led vehicles. DESIGN MODIFICATIONS It is anticipated that some modification for cold weather starting of these vehicles may be necessary. This is in an area in which the University of Iowa has gained considerable experience in its research work with Ford Tractor Operations, which include d a combination of block heaters, preheated intake air (which is passed over the exhaust manifold), fueled heaters, propane starting fuel plus a number of other design alternatives with which we are aware. In addition one of the units should possibly be factory equipped with a fuel injection system. It is anticipated, however, that the fuel injection may have to be a retrofit, and this eventuality has already inaugerated a search for appropriate hardware. We also have the advantage of using the Centr al Scientific Research Laboratory on alternative fuels in Ford-Dearborn for design-engineer counsel. SELECTION OF SPECIFIC SITES FOR VEHICLE TESTING It has been understood by all concerned that this test program is not being inaugerated for publicity purposes or to sell some sort of public relations image. The units will be tested in an environment that is strictly rural. Although it will be known i n the small community of Audubon that these tests are taking place, there is no intention to encourage public demonstration of these vehicles during the test period, other than what is unavoidable. The location of the units will be selected by a three m an committee that are all Audubon area locals who are either farmers, or have local business interests. The units are to be used in the same pattern and to perform the same tasks as would be typical for a light weight pickup employed on the farm -- which would include hauling small loads, and farm to city to school travel. It is anticipated that the vehic les would be housed each night on the farmstead. The vehicle operators would carry their own insurance on the vehicle, although the licensing and ownership would be considered as part of the state vehicle fleet titled to the University of Iowa and would carry a state licensing, the latter to be sanctioned through the Vehicle Registration of the Motor Vehicles Division of the Iowa DOT. TAXES. There would be no state tax on the ethanol fuel used in the vehicles as this activity would be considered as "in the public service". As mentioned, the vehicles would be owned by the University of Iowa as test and research vehicles. SUMMARY. There is a large body of knowledge on the operation and economics of dedicated, ethanol fuel over the road vehicles that has never been scientifically evaluated. There are over a million of these vehicles on the road in Brazil. This University has, for most of the decade, been involved in evaluating the technical and economic aspects of ethanol produced from corn and ethanol utilization. This University has also done much work in corn utilization in general. The principle objectives of this project is to establish, using state-of-the-art production -- engineering design, where ethanol fueled vehicles are -- in terms of economic and technical viability. And do these vehicles represent an alternate transporta tion concept, that this country should consider as a partial solution to our over production of corn, as a means of providing some improvement in our balance of payments, and improve our national security by reducing our dependence on imported oil. We respectfully request your approval of our undertaking. Sincerely, |
|||||||||||
ID: 21124.drnOpen
John A. Green, Supervisor Dear Mr. Green: This responds to your letter asking about an Oceanside (California) Unified School District school bus modified with a product manufactured by Majestic Transportation Products, Ltd. , (Majestic) called the Safe-T-Bar passenger restraint system. You explain that the Safe-T-Bar is a "heavily padded U-shaped bar similar to the type of restraint systems most commonly found on amusement park rides." Majestic asserts that "during a sudden stop, collision, or bus rollover - etc., a small weighted pendulum swings and engages a latch, locking the 'Safe-T-Bar' in the down position, thereby controlling and restraining the passenger within the padded seating area." You further inform us that Majestic and the Oceanside Unified School District are "cooperating" in testing the system on an Oceanside school bus. You do not describe how or what type of testing is being conducted, or whether school children are involved in the testing. You asked that we respond to six questions. The questions address the safety of the Safe-T-Bar system and whether a school bus that has its passenger seats retrofitted with Safe-T-Bars would continue to meet Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS), including Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. Our answers are provided below. In addressing your questions, it might be helpful to have some background information on school bus crash protection. In response to the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974, we issued a number of safety standards under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (now codified at 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.) to improve protection of school bus passengers during crashes. One of these standards was Standard No. 222, which provides for passenger crash protection through a concept called "compartmentalization." Prior to issuance of Standard No. 222, we found that the school bus seat was a significant factor contributing to injury. We found that seats failed the passengers in three principal respects: by being too weak; too low; and too hostile. In response, we developed requirements to improve the performance of school bus seats and the overall crash protection of school buses. Those requirements comprise the "compartmentalization" approach we adopted for providing high levels of crash protection to school bus passengers. Compartmentalization is directed toward ensuring that passengers are surrounded by high-backed, well-padded seats that both cushion and contain the children in a crash. If a seat is not compartmentalized by a seat back in front of it, compartmentalization must be provided by a restraining barrier. The seats and restraining barriers must be strong enough to maintain their integrity in a crash yet flexible enough to be capable of deflecting in a manner which absorbs the energy of the occupant.They must meet specified height requirements and be constructed, by use of substantial padding or other means, so that they provide protection when they are impacted by the head and legs of a passenger. It is helpful to bear in mind the following highlights about compartmentalization:
With this background in mind, we now turn to your questions.
The answer is no. The manufacturer of a motor vehicle must certify that the vehicle meets applicable FMVSSs. Under 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, the motor vehicle manufacturer must "affix to each vehicle a label" that among other information, states: "This vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture shown above." This statement is the certification. Most items of the motor vehicle equipment that have applicable FMVSS are marked "DOT" to indicate that they meet the standards' requirements. Regarding certification to FMVSS requirements, independent testing laboratories sometimes provide services to vehicle and equipment manufacturers, including information and test data that support the manufacturers' certifications. However, testing by itself is neither a certification nor a substitute for certification.
The answer is no. Any representation that NHTSA "certifies" or "approves" test laboratories or facilities to conduct compliance testing, or for any other purpose, would be misleading. I note that in its information to you, Majestic describes a testing facility that produced a "comprehensive seventy two page report" as a "federally approved collision testing facility." NHTSA has not approved the facility, or any other facility, to conduct compliance testing or for any other purpose.
Because the Safe-T-Bar system is an item of equipment that is sold separately from a school bus, there are no safety standards that directly apply to it. Our safety standards for school buses apply to new, completed vehicles, not to separate components or systems. As such, Standard No. 222 does not apply to the Safe-T-Bar system, assuming the system is sold in the aftermarket and is not sold as part of a new school bus. A representation that a product meets crash protection standards that do not apply is misleading. (1) If the Safe-T-Bar system were installed on new school buses, the vehicle would have to meet Standard No. 222 and the other school bus standards with the product installed. Without testing a vehicle, we cannot make a positive determination of whether the standard could be met with the product installed. However, as explained below, we believe that a new school bus may not be able to meet the standard with the Safe-T-Bar system. We have other safety concerns as well, apart from whether the requirements of Standard No. 222 could be met.
Section 30122 of our statute prohibits a motor vehicle manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from installing any modification that "make[s] inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . . ." Any person in the aforementioned categories that makes inoperative the compliance of a device or element of design on the vehicle would be subject to fines of up to $1,100 per violation and to injunctive relief. The compartmentalization requirements of Standard No. 222 include requirements that a protective seat back must be provided to protect an unrestrained passenger. We are concerned about the continued compliance of a bus with a Safe-T-Bar installed with Standard No. 222's seat deflection and head and leg protection requirements.
We believe it is possible that the incorporation of the Safe-T-Bar system into existing school bus seats would reduce the benefits of compartmentalization, and otherwise adversely affect safety. NHTSA has previously discussed compliance and other safety concerns applicable to similar devices, including the R-Bar, a padded restraining device designed to be mounted on the seat backs of school buses that folds down to restrain the passengers in the next rearward seat. In a letter of October 15, 1993 (copy enclosed), NHTSA summarized how it has addressed various compliance and safety issues applicable to devices similar to R-Bars and the Safe-T-Bar: Standard No. 222 specifies a forward and a rearward push test on the seat back of a school bus seat. These tests are designed to require seat backs to deform in a controlled manner. For example, in a frontal crash, occupants will impact the seat back in front of their seating position. That seat back must deflect forward to absorb energy from the occupants, but not collapse so far as to cause injuries to passengers seated in front of it. Our crash statistics show that the compartmentalization concept supported by Standard No. 222 has been successful in protecting the students who ride on the nation's school buses. The agency is concerned that the introduction of Safe-T-Bar type devices will adversely affect the protection provided by Standard No. 222. Using the same frontal crash example, these devices will likely place loads on the student's abdomen and force the upper torso to rotate around the bar, place strains on the student's spine, and allow the heads of larger students to strike the top of the seat back in front of them. In contrast, unrestrained passengers will translate forward into the seat back in front of them and distribute the load across their entire upper torso. Standard No. 222 requirements for head and leg protection, where compliance is demonstrated by impacting the seat back, result in seat designs that accommodate this type of loading. In addition, Safe-T-Bar type devices can reduce and otherwise limit the living space between seats. In the event a seat back is loaded and deformed by the students in the rear seat, the students in the forward seat may be sandwiched between their seat back and the restraining device attached to the seat in front of them. Similar arguments may be made for rear end impacts.
Compartmentalization is intended to restrain passengers in a crash without seat belt assemblies or devices such as the Safe-T-Bar. As previously explained, we have concerns about a product that might interfere with the capability of a school bus to protect occupants. For the above reasons, we believe that a school bus seating system with a bar system might reduce the crash protection provided in vehicles which meet the requirements of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. There is limited information on how bar systems would perform in a crash or affect the current safety of school buses. We are undertaking a comprehensive school bus safety research program to evaluate better ways of retaining occupants in the seating compartment. As part of that program, we will be looking into possible ways of redesigning the school bus seat, as well as integrating a lap and shoulder belt into the seat that is compatible with compartmentalization. Also, we plan to conduct research on extra padding, not only for the seat itself but also for the bus side wall. On a final note, we would like to point out that many of Oceanside's newer school buses may still be under the school bus manufacturer's warranty. Before Oceanside decides to retrofit any school bus with the Safe-T-Bar or a similar system, it may be prudent for the school district to share Majestic's information with the school bus manufacturer, and request a determination whether the school bus manufacturer will continue to honor applicable warranties if the Safe-T-Bar system were placed on school buses. I hope this information is helpful. 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, Frank Seales, Jr. Enclosures ref:222
1. Regardless of whether a safety standard applies to the product, our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30120 requires manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle replacement equipment to notify owners and to provide remedies if it is determined their products have safety-related defects. If it were determined that the Safe-T-Bar systems had a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would have to notify all purchasers and repair or replace the defective item without charge. |
2000 | ||||||||||
Request an Interpretation
You may email your request to Interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov or send your request in hard copy to:
The Chief Counsel
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, W41-326
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590
If you want to talk to someone at NHTSA about what a request for interpretation should include, call the Office of the Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.
Please note that NHTSA’s response will be made available in this online database, and that the incoming interpretation request may also be made publicly available.