ID: aiam3448

Dear Mr. Maugh: This responds to your letter of July 31, 1981, to Hugh Oates of m staff requesting an interpretation concerning Safety Standard No. 210, *Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages*. You ask whether you are correct in your belief that the requirements of paragraph S4.3.1.1 of the standard apply to the seat belt anchorages used in your planned 1982-model Continental passenger cars rather than the requirements of paragraph S4.3.1.2.; Paragraph S4.3.1 of the Standard specifies location requirements fo the seat belt anchorages for Type 1 seat belt assemblies and the pelvic portion of Type 2 seat belt assemblies. Paragraph S4.3.1.1 applies in those installations in which the seat belt does not bear upon the seat frame, and the requirements of paragraph S4.3.1.2 apply in installations in which the seat belt does bear upon the seat frame. On the 1982 Continental passenger cars, the buckle end of the seat belt assembly passes through a 'console support structure' which is connected to the bottom of the seat frame. However, you contend that since the console support structure is not a structural component of the seat frame, the seat belt does not bear upon the seat frame and, consequently, that paragraph S4.3.1.1 applies.; Your interpretation of paragraphs S4.3.1.1 and S4.3.1.2 is correct. Th phrase 'bears upon the seat frame' as used in paragraph S4.3.1.2 refers to seat belt assemblies in which the seat belt presses or rests directly on the main structural frame of the seat. As illustrated in the photographs supplied in your letter, the seat belt in the 1982-model Continental passenger cars does not bear upon the structural seat frame. Rather, the belt rests on the console support frame which is not a necessary structural component of the main seat frame, but is merely attached to the seat frame at the bottom on the inboard side. Since the seat belt is located to the side of the seat frame and does not bear upon the structural seat frame itself, the requirements of paragraph S4.3.1.1 apply to the location of the seat belt anchorages used in the 1982 Continental passenger cars rather than the requirements of Paragraph S4.3.1.2.; We note that the console support frame could easily have been attache to the transmission tunnel rather than to the seat frame. In that case, the seat belt obviously would not bear upon the seat frame. However, with such a design, the frame supporting the belt would not move with the seat, and the driver could have problems reaching the belt and positioning it properly when the seat is in certain positions. The design of the passenger seat and seat belt assembly in the 1982 Continental is very desirable because attachment of the console support frame to the seat makes the seat belt very accessible in all seat positions. The fact that the console was attached to the seat frame for convenience purposes does not mean that the console is part of the seat frame within the meaning of S4.3.1.2.; The original intent of the location requirements of FMVSS 210 was t enhance belt performance with acceptable belt comfort and convenience. The specific requirements that are the subject of this interpretation were intended to ensure that belts would not develop excessive slack if a seat structural member bent or failed during a crash, and to reduce the likelihood that the lap belt would move into the abdominal area during a crash. We trust that Ford has adequately tested the configuration that is proposed here to ensure proper performance in a crash situation.; Please contact this office if you have further questions. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0705

Dear Mr. Kourik:The following interpetations (sic) are submitted i response to your letter of March 16, 1972, concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems* and are numbered as the questions were in your letter.; >>>1. The 30 skid number surface referred to in the Standard is wet an measured by the ASTM B-274-65T procedure omitting water delivery as specified in paragraph 7.1 of that procedure.; 2. In S5.1.6 total electrical failure 'means any electrical failur within the antilock electrical system circuitry which would cause loss of antilock control of every wheel on the vehicle.; 3. S5.1.6 does not at present require the activation of the antiloc warning device so long as proper antilock control remains on at least one wheel or axle.; 4. The requirement for an antilock warning device is not limited to failure in the power supply at the antilock electrical connection. However, an electrical failure in a vehicle which causes failure of the whole vehicle electrical system is not expected to activate the warning system since there would be no power to energize it.; 5. In S5.1.7, for air over hydraulic brake systems, the 6 psi pressur is measured in the power air chamber coupled to the master cylinder used to convert air pressure to hydraulic pressure.; 6. The wording of S5.1.7 is not intended to exclude the use of an auxiliary hand application valves for controlling the trailer brakes as long as there is also a foot treddle valve which controls the brakes of the towing vehicle and any towed vehicle.; 7. The stoplight on a trailer is to be actuated whenever the servic brakes on the trailer are applied. S4.5.3 of FMVSS No. 108 states 'the stoplamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon the application of the service brakes.'; 8. The intent of S5.2.1.2 is for the service reservoir capacity, to b eight times the combined volume of all of the service brake chambers.; 9. In S5.3.2 the 90 psi pressure is to be fully applied to the traile at the start of the stop.; 10. In S5.3.2, the air compressor and air supply system of the towin vehicle are expected to be operating normally.; 11. In S5.3.3, the towing vehicle brakes may be by-passed by an convenient means so long as it does not cause the air pressure applied to the trailer to fall below 90 psi.; 12. In S5.3.2, item 4 and 5 of Table I are not applicable. 13. A truck tested brake may be run on a dynamometer by a manufacture for his own purposes but compliance with S5.4.1, S5.4.2 and S5.4.3 of the Standard will be determined by the Government by testing a new brake assembly identical to the one on the vehicle.; 14. Same answer as for 13 above. 15. The intent of S.5.4 is for a new brake assembly identical to th one on the vehicle to be tested on a dynamometer for conformance with S5.4.1, S5.4.2 and S5.4.3.; 16. Same as answer for 15 above. 17. In S5.4.1, S5.4.2 and S5.4.3, for air or hydraulic brake systems the 'brake chamber air pressure' is the air pressure in the power chamber coupled to the master cylinder usedto (sic) convert air pressure to hydraulic pressure.; 18. Same answer as for question 17. 19. The Standard does not consider tandem ratings, it addresses onl the GAWR of each individual axle.; 20. Vehicles conforming to S5.6.1 must have a parking brake on eac individual axle of a tandem axle arrangement.; 21. In S5.6.2(a) 'Gross vehicle weight rating' is correct fo semi-trailers as well as trucks and buses, gross axle weight rating is not meant.; 22. Semi-trailers are not excluded from meeting the alternat requirement of S5.6.2.; 23. A dolly is classified as a trailer and is a separate vehicle. 24. In S5.6.2, the unloaded dolly weight does not include an unloade semi-trailer.; 25. In the dynamometer test conditions of S6.2.1, the dynamomete inertia for each brake assembly is based on 1/2 the GAWR of the axle. The rating for each axle is required to be stated separately. If, in the example you give, you choose to give 17,000 pounds as the rating for each axle, then the dynamometer inertia would be at 8,500 pounds for each brake assembly.<<<; Sincerely, E. T. Driver, Director, Office of Operating Systems, Moto Vehicle Programs;

ID: GF007220

Louis J. Carlin, Director
Safety Regulations and Consumer Information
General Motors North America
Mail Code: 480 111 S56
30200 Mound Road
Warren, MI 48090-9010

Dear Mr. Carlin:

This is in response to your letters dated September 23, 2004 and October 11, 2004, in which you requested interpretations of certain requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims. Specifically, you raised certain issues with respect to the content of the tire information placard, and tire normal load requirements.

In your October 11, 2004 letter, you ask whether S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110, as amended by the final rule in response to petitions for reconsideration published on June 3, 2004 (69 FR 31306), allows a light truck tire load identification of B, C, D, E, or F on the tire information placard. Our answer is no.

S4.3(i) specifies that only a tire load identification XL or reinforced may appear on the tire information placard (see 69 FR at 31318). No other load identification is allowed. We note, however, that we received several petitions for reconsideration asking the agency to permit load identifications B, C, D, E, or F on tire information placards (see Docket No. NHTSA-2004-17917-6). We are currently considering that request. We expect to issue our response in the near future.

In your September 23, 2004 letter, you ask about a technical correction to the June 3, 2004 final rule. In the correction notice published on August 19, 2004 (69 FR 51399), we amended S4.2.2 of FMVSS No. 110. You state that the amendment to S4.2.2 was unnecessary. You ask to confirm which section of FMVSS No. 110 currently specifies the normal load requirements, and what section of FMVSS No. 110 will specify the normal load requirements in the future.

Currently, the normal load requirements apply only to passenger cars. S4.2.2 of FMVSS No. 110 specifies normal load limits for passenger cars. Effective June 1, 2007, S4.2.1.2 will specify the normal load limits for passenger cars, and S4.2.2.3 will specify the normal load requirements for multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, and trailers with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. You are correct to note that the August 19, 2004 document does not affect the date on which multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, and trailers with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds will become subject to the normal load requirements. We intend to clarify this issue when we respond to the petitions for reconsideration of the June 3, 2004 final rule.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:110
d.1/3/05

ID: nht74-2.41

DATE: 02/05/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Trailmobile Technical Center

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of January 21, 1974, you cite the provision of Standard No. 108 under which "the height of the rear clearance lamps is optional if the identification lamps are located at the top of the trailer", and suggest that a similar option be adopted for identification lamps, i.e., that their height location "be made optional if the rear clearance lamps are located as close to the top of the closed van trailer as practical".

Clearance lamps are required by Standard No. 108 to "indicate the overall width of the vehicle . . . as near the top as practicable". The primary purpose of these lamps is to indicate the overall width of the vehicle, and the secondary purpose is to indicate the overall height. Identification lamps on the other hand are a system (three lamps with specified spacing) located "as near the top as practicable". The sole purpose of this system is to identify a vehicle as one of large size. When the widest part of a vehicle is at a point other than the highest point, such as when the fenders are separate or protrude from the body, the option in Standard No. 108 in effect allows the clearance lamps to be mounted at the widest point even though it would be practicable to mount them higher, as long as the identification lamps are mounted at the top of the vehicle, thus fulfilling the secondary function of the clearance lamps. Since the identification lamps are a system serving only the one function of identification, the clearance lamps cannot act as substitutes and the system must be mounted at the point of maximum visibility ("as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle"). To adopt your suggestion would allow a manufacturer to mount the system at the bottom of a vehicle even if it is practicable to mount them at the top, thus substantially negating the identification function the system serves. For this reason we cannot adopt the option you suggest.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

TRAILMOBILE TECHNICAL CENTER

January 21, 1974

Richard B. Dyson, -- Assistant Chief Counsel, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Dyson:

Thank you for your ruling on the rear identification lamps in a trailer shallow header (N40-302TV).

Although the ruling was not what we had hoped for, it did however contain the nucellus of a solution to the problem that would satisfy everyone concerned.

Today, the height of the rear clearance lamps is optional if the identification lamps are located at the top of the trailer. Obviously, the intent is to have the top of the rear of a van trailer marked by lights (but not necessarily by all of the required lamps).

To solve some of the problems that we manufacturers face, I request that the height location of the rear identification lamps be made optional if the rear clearance lamps are located as close to the top of the closed van trailer as practical.

I believe that this request is consistant with the intent of MVSS #108 and, in fact, is consistant with the requirements for open top, grain, and dump trailers.

Your prompt consideration and reply will be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

Evan Hammond -- Manager - Central Engineering

cc: E. E. Lungren; R. J. Deller; J. E. Cook

ID: nht94-9.8

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 8, 1994

FROM: Bob Carver -- Product Engineering, Wayne Wheeled Vehicles

TO: John Womack

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/24/94 from John Womack to Bob Carver (A42; Std. 217)

TEXT:

I have two matters in which I need rulings from the Chief Counsel regarding FMVSS 217. I've discussed both with Charles Hott and he recommended that I write you for an official response.

QUESTION 1:

There's some confusion here in our engineering department regarding the interpretation of the "Daylight Opening" and "Unobstructed Opening" as it applies to the new side emergency door specifications in FMVSS 217. Page 2 shows the allowable obstruction and the context in which "Daylight Opening" and "Unobstructed Opening" are used. Page 3 shows some measurements of our seats placed according to the "30 cm minimum" shown on page 2. Page 4 shows four different interpretations of the "Unobstructed Opening" area. Depending on the interpretation, between 9 and 15 people may be accommodated by a side emergency door. My question is this: of the four possibilities shown, which definition of the "Unobstructed Opening" area is correct? Mr. Hott indicated definition 4.

QUESTION 2:

Here is an excerpt from FMVSS 217 S5.5.3(a): "Each school bus ....shall have the designation "Emergency Door" or "Emergency Exit" as appropriate,.... For emergency exit doors, the designation shall be located at the top of, or directly above, the emergency exit door on both the inside and outside surfaces of the bus..... For emergency window exits, the designation shall be located at the top of, or directly above, or at the bottom of the emergency window exit on both the inside and outside surfaces of the bus."

I've seen a two-sided sticker used by other bus manufacturers. It is applied on the inside surface of a window and the same image "Emergency Door" or "Emergency Exit" can be read from both inside and outside the bus. Is it permissible for us to use this sort of decal, assuming it meets all other (i.e. FMVSS 302)?

I can make an educated guess on both questions, but I'd like an official ruling. I look forward to your response.

ATTACHMENT

Figure 5C - Mimimum Side Emergency Exit Clearance Specifications and Side Door Opening With Seat Obstruction. (Text and graphics omitted.)

ID: nht94-1.13

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 8, 1994

FROM: Bob Carver -- Product Engineering, Wayne Wheeled Vehicles

TO: John Womack

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/24/94 from John Womack to Bob Carver (A42; Std. 217)

TEXT:

I have two matters in which I need rulings from the Chief Counsel regarding FMVSS 217. I've discussed both with Charles Hott and he recommended that I write you for an official response.

QUESTION 1:

There's some confusion here in our engineering department regarding the interpretation of the "Daylight Opening" and "Unobstructed Opening" as it applies to the new side emergency door specifications in FMVSS 217. Page 2 shows the allowable obstruction and the context in which "Daylight Opening" and "Unobstructed Opening" are used. Page 3 shows some measurements of our seats placed according to the "30 cm minimum" shown on page 2. Page 4 shows four different interpretations of the "Unobstructed Openi ng" area. Depending on the interpretation, between 9 and 15 people may be accommodated by a side emergency door. My question is this: of the four possibilities shown, which definition of the "Unobstructed Opening" area is correct? Mr. Hott indicated definition 4.

QUESTION 2:

Here is an excerpt from FMVSS 217 S5.5.3(a): "Each school bus ....shall have the designation "Emergency Door" or "Emergency Exit" as appropriate,.... For emergency exit doors, the designation shall be located at the top of, or directly above, the emergency exit door on both the inside a nd outside surfaces of the bus..... For emergency window exits, the designation shall be located at the top of, or directly above, or at the bottom of the emergency window exit on both the inside and outside surfaces of the bus."

I've seen a two-sided sticker used by other bus manufacturers. It is applied on the inside surface of a window and the same image "Emergency Door" or "Emergency Exit" can be read from both inside and outside the bus. Is it permissible for us to use thi s sort of decal, assuming it meets all other (i.e. FMVSS 302)?

I can make an educated guess on both questions, but I'd like an official ruling. I look forward to your response.

ATTACHMENT

Figure 5C - Mimimum Side Emergency Exit Clearance Specifications and Side Door Opening With Seat Obstruction. (Text and graphics omitted.)

ID: aiam5380

Dear Mr. Vierimaa: We are replying to your letter of August 9, 1993 with respect to your views on the enforceability of a section of the Michigan Motor Vehicle Code. This issue apparently arose in correspondence between you and the Michigan Department of State Police in May 1989. Under Section 719(8)(c) of the Michigan Code, a 'semitrailer' whose overall length is more than 50 feet is required to be equipped with 'two clearance lamps, 1 on each side of the semitrailer, located at 1/2 the distance from the front to the rear and as near to the top of the semitrailer as practicable.' In your letter of May 12, 1989, to the State Police, you stated your assumption that the 'two clearance lamps' are the 'intermediate side marker lamps' specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, and, if Michigan is requiring two additional intermediate side marker lamps, 'then it would appear that your requirement is invalid as FMVSS 108 preempts State regulations which substantially differ.' In support of your views, you provided Michigan with copies of relevant NHTSA interpretations. Michigan replied on May 16, 1989, that NHTSA had not notified it that 'the requirement of an additional 'clearance lamp' as near as to the top of the semitrailer as practicable is preempted by section 103(d)', and that 'the lamp is not a marker lamp as mentioned in 1.7 of the DOT interpretations.' You indicate that this is a reference to our letter of December 10, 1974, to the California Highway Patrol. You ask for our concurrence in your conclusion that Michigan is preempted from enforcing its requirements. The Federal motor vehicle safety standard on motor vehicle lighting is 49 CFR 571.108 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective devices, and Associated Equipment. Table II of Standard No. 108 applies, in pertinent part, to trailers of 80 or more inches overall width, and requires them to be equipped with front and rear side marker lamps as far to the front and to the rear as practicable, and with 'intermediate side marker lamps', amber in color, 'located at or near the midpoint between the front and rear side marker lamps.' All side marker lamps are to be mounted not less than 15 inches above the road surface. However, paragraph S5.1.1.3 states that intermediate side marker devices are not required on vehicles less than 30 feet in overall length. Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (l5 U.S.C. 1392(d)) states that whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect, no State 'shall have any authority either to establish or continue in effect with respect to any motor vehicle . . . any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle . . . which is not identical to the Federal standard' (emphasis added). In our opinion, the 'aspect of performance' covered by Section 719(8)(c) of the Michigan Code is the side conspicuity of extra long trailers, the same 'aspect of performance' that is addressed by the requirements of Table II that I have discussed in the preceding paragraph. Because Standard No. 108 requires trailers more than 50 feet in length to be equipped with intermediate side lamps located not less than l5 inches above the pavement, any State requirement that such trailers be equipped with a supplementary set of lamps in the same approximate vertical plane but as near the top of the trailer as practicable is preempted by Table II of Standard No. 108. The fact that Michigan calls the lamp a 'clearance' lamp rather than a 'marker' lamp does not affect this conclusion (in fact, we regard all non-signal lamps other than headlamps as 'marker' lamps, including the 'clearance' lamps Table II requires on the front and rear of wide trailers). The purpose of the preemption clause is to relieve the burden on interstate commerce that would result from a manufacturer having to meet more than one set of safety requirements to address the same safety concern. It does not affect the right of a State to establish its own safety requirements in areas where there are no Federal ones. The interpretation provided the California Highway Patrol is consistent with this one. There we advised that to the extent that California law prohibited multiple marker lamps or prescribed different mounting requirements other than as permitted by Standard No. 108, those laws were preempted by section 103(d).

Sincerely, John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2386

Dear Mr. Bishop: This is in response to your July 7, 1976, request for informatio regarding the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards to 'rumble seat kits' for installation in passenger cars. The answers to your questions are as follows:; (1) 'Is there any Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards or Regulation that would preclude the installation of rumble seats in passenger cars?'; >>>The answer to your question is no.<<< (2) 'What are the current Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards an Regulations that would be specifically applicable to the installation of rumble seats in passenger cars?'; >>>Installation of the rumble seats could affect compliance of th vehicle with the following safety standards: Standard No. 207, *Seating Systems*, Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*, Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*, Standard No. 210, *Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages*, and Standard No. 110, *Tire Selection and Rims*.; We are assuming that the rumble seats would be installed in complete vehicles that are already certified, in which case the alterer would be required to meet the requirements of 49 CFR Part 567. Section 567.7 requires one who alters a previously certified vehicle, prior to its first sale, (by other than readily attachable components) to affix an additional label to the vehicle, stating that the vehicle remains in compliance with all applicable safety standards after the alteration. It should be noted that any additional weight created by the rumble seats or a change in the distribution of weight could also affect the vehicle's compliance with other safety standards whose test procedures require a barrier crash test.; We also would point out that 49 CFR Part 575 requires manufacturers t provide consumer information regarding vehicle stopping distance, tire reserve load, and acceleration and passing ability, at the point of first sale of the vehicle and along with the purchased vehicle. The increased weight created by the rumble seats could require modification of the information that would have to be provided.<<<; (3) 'Is there any State or Local Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that t your knowledge may preclude the installation of rumble seats in passenger vehicles?'; >>>We are not aware of any State or local regulations that woul preclude installation of rumble seats in passenger vehicles.<<<; (4) Can you furnish a list of Government approved independent testin facilities for FMVSS compliance testing?'; >>>The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does no approve independent testing facilities, nor will it recommend that any particular testing center be utilized. You might wish to contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators concerning this subject, at 1201 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.<<<; (5) 'Can the NHTSA make any design recommendations related to th installation of rumble seats in passenger vehicles?'; >>>The NHTSA does not provide engineering expertise regarding th manufacture of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. However, the agency will answer specific questions that a manufacturer might have concerning the basis for a particular performance requirement.<<<; (6) 'Is there any future or pending legislation that may be related t the installation of rumble seats in passenger vehicles?'; >>>At the present time there is no pending Federal legislation relatin to the installation of rumble seats in passenger vehicles, nor is any such legislation anticipated by the NHTSA in the immediate future.<<<; The statements made above are directed primarily to the situation i which rumble seats would be installed prior to first sale of the vehicle, and in which the vehicle would have to be certified as being in compliance with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards. Please note, however, that the aftermarket installation of rumble seats might also be subject to Federal requirements.; Section 108 (a) (2) (A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicl Safety Act of 1966 provides that, with one exception, '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 or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. . . .' Therefore, no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business may install the rumble seats in a motor vehicle if he knows that such installation would alter the vehicle's compliance with any safety standard. For example, installation of rumble seats could possibly affect components of the vehicle that are subject to the requirements of safety standards such as Standard No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment*, or Standard No. 301, *Fuel System Integrity*.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: 15753.ogm

J.F. Brownholtz, Ph.D.
Department of Exercise and Sport Sciences
University of Miami
School of Education
P.O. Box 248065
Coral Gables, FL 33124-2040

Dear Dr. Brownholtz:

This responds to your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in which you request that NHTSA test and endorse your product. You have developed an aftermarket supplemental head restraint, the "Neck Saver," which is designed to be installed on existing head restraints in automobiles and other vehicles.

By way of background information, Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code gives this agency the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Chapter 301 provides that no person shall "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicles or equipment comply with the applicable standard. (See 49 U.S.C. 30112.) NHTSA has no authority under Chapter 301 to approve, certify, or otherwise endorse any commercial product. Instead, Chapter 301 establishes a self-certification process under which each manufacturer is required to certify that each of its products meets all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Moreover, NHTSA does not endorse any products.

There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that is directly applicable to the product you wish to manufacture and sell. Our standard for head restraints (Standard No. 202) applies only to new passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less.

However, there are other Federal requirements that indirectly affect your manufacture and sale of the "Neck Saver." Under Chapter 301, your device is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in sections 30118-30120 of Chapter 301 concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that the "Neck Saver" contains a safety related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

It appears that the "Neck Saver" would be installed by the vehicle owner. However, if it were to be professionally installed, Section 30122 of Title 49, U.S. Code provides that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in accordance with a safety standard. For example, a commercial entity must ensure that the addition of the device does not degrade from the safety provided by flammable-resistant materials in the vehicle's interior compartment which have been installed in accordance with Standard No. 302. Installation of rapidly burning materials could vitiate the compliance of the materials which were present in the vehicle at the time of its sale to the first consumer and were certified as meeting FMVSS No. 302. Similarly, a commercial entity must ensure that installation of the device does not affect compliance with Standard No. 202.

However, the prohibitions of Section 30122 do not apply to the actions of a vehicle owner in adding to or otherwise modifying his or her vehicle. Thus, a vehicle owner would not violate Chapter 301 by installing the head restraint, even if doing so would negatively affect some safety feature in his or her vehicle.

NHTSA is currently studying the possibility of proposing changes to Standard No. 202. I am enclosing a copy of a December 19, 1996 request for comments (61 FR 66992) in which the agency requested interested parties to submit their views on a NHTSA Technical Report titled, "Head Restraints-Identification of Issues Relevant to Regulation, Design, and Effectiveness." While the comment period outlined in this notice has closed, I am providing a copy of the report in light of your interest in this subject.

We are also returning herewith the samples of the "Neck Saver" you enclosed with your letter.

Please feel free to contact Otto Matheke of my staff at (202) 366-5253 if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:202
d.12/18/97

ID: aiam3920

Dear Mr. Martin: This responds to your January 24, 1985 letter to the National Highwa Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) asking about our school bus safety standards.; Your first question asked whether a bus manufactured to accommodate passengers and 3 wheelchair positions to be used for carrying students would be classified as a school bus. The answer to your question is yes. Whether a vehicle is a school bus depends on the seating capacity of the vehicle. NHTSA determines the seating capacity of a motor vehicle by identifying the number of designated seating positions, as defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3, in the vehicle. 'Designated seating position' is defined as:; >>>any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least a large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design and vehicle design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jumpseats....<<<; Consistent with this definition, we have also counted position designed to accommodate wheelchairs in determining vehicle seating capacity for the determination of vehicle classification. Since your vehicle carries 10 passengers plus a driver, for a total of 11 persons, it is a school bus under Part 571.3 of our regulations.; The second part of this question asked whether this vehicle would b required to comply with the seating requirements of FMVSS No. 222. The answer is yes. Each new school bus must comply with all applicable requirements of Standard No. 222. Some different requirements apply to school buses having gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less, than to school buses with GVWR's greater than 10,000 pounds. For example, the seat spacing requirements of Standard No. 222 do not apply to the lighter school buses, since these vehicles are required to have safety belts.; Your second question asked whether a vehicle manufactured to carry student passengers would be classified as a school bus. The answer is no. Such a vehicle does not have the passenger capacity of a bus, and is thus not a school bus. Although the school bus safety standards would not apply to this vehicle, it would have to meet the standards set for a multipurpose passenger vehicle.; Your third and fourth questions concerned side facing seats fo handicapped passengers. You first asked whether seat barriers must be placed forward and rearward of a side facing seat, when the seat is positioned between rows of forward facing seats.; I assume that you are concerned with buses having GVWR's greater tha 10,000 pounds, since the seat spacing requirements of S5.2 of Standard No. 222 apply only to these heavier school buses. In a preamble to a July 12, 1976, Federal Register notice (41 FR 28506), the agency determined that the seat spacing requirements of S5.2 are not appropriate for side facing seats designed to accommodate handicapped or convalescent passengers. Therefore, a restraining barrier is not required forward of a side facing seat. However, a restraining barrier must be provided rearward of any side facing seat that has a forward facing seat next to it, in order to compartmentalize the passengers in the forward facing seat.; Your fourth question assumed that S5.2 applied to side facing seats You asked whether the back of a forward facing seat positioned in front of a side facing seat could be used to meet the barrier requirements of S5.2. As discussed above, S5.2 does not apply to side facing seats.; Your fifth question asked whether safety belts are required for sid facing seats on school buses with GVWR's of 10,000 pounds or less, and on school buses with GVWR's greater than 10,000 pounds. For school buses with GVWR's of 10,000 pounds or less, Standard No. 222 requires that the applicable specifications of Standard Nos. 208, 209, and 210, be met 'at all seating positions other than the driver's seat.' Thus each seating position in a small school bus must have a safety belt and anchorages that comply with the applicable requirements of those standards. Side facing seats on the heavier school buses are not required to have safety belts.; Your sixth question asked if we have information on the use of shoulde straps and harnesses with lap belts for passenger seats on school buses. NHTSA has not conducted any tests on the use of shoulder straps or harnesses with safety belts on school buses. You might want to contact school bus manufacturers to discuss how 3-point belt systems can be used in school buses.; Your last question asked whether NHTSA has any plans at the present t delete the safety belt requirements for school buses with GVWR's of 10,000 pounds or less. Although NHTSA has no present plans to delete the safety belt requirement for the lighter school buses, the agency is presently reviewing the Canadian test data to which you referred in your letter. If we believe there is a need to propose to amend Standard No. 222, the public will have an opportunity to submit comments.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel