ID: 002323cmc

Mr. Jeff Kennedy
Four Winds International
701 C.R. 15
Elkhart, IN 46516

Dear Mr. Kennedy:

This is in response to your letter dated March 3, 2003, in which you asked about the strength requirements applicable to Type 2 and Type 2a seat belt assemblies installed in the driver and front passenger seat locations. As explained below, Type 2a belts are generally prohibited, however, your understanding of the strength requirements for Type 2 belts appears correct.

In your letter you stated that you are developing upgrades for the new models of your recreational vehicles and plan on using a "Type 2 or Type 2a seat belt assembly at the driver seat and front passenger seat locations." You stated that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 210, Seat belt assembly anchorages, "does not appear to list any strength requirements for the anchorages used to locate the upper torso restraint [of a Type 2a seat belt]." You further stated that you understood that the "anchorages, attachment hardware, and attachment bolts" for both the lap and shoulder portions of Type 2 seat belt assemblies are subject to the strength requirements of S4.2.2(b) of FMVSS No. 210.

Generally, installation of Type 2a shoulder belts is prohibited. FMVSS No. 209, Seat belt assemblies, defines a Type 2a shoulder belt as "an upper torso restraint for use only in conjunction with a lap belt as a Type 2 seat belt assembly."The agency has determined that the integrated assemblies of Type 2 seat belts are safer than the Type 2a shoulder belts. Original equipment Type 2a shoulder belts may only be used at the driver seating position of vehicles intended to accommodate a wheel chair.(59 Federal Register 25826; May 18, 1994.) Since a Type 2a shoulder belt may not be used as you had intended, there is no need to further address your question regarding the strength requirements applicable to these types of belts.

Your understanding of the strength requirements for Type 2 seat belt assemblies is correct. Under S4.2.2, the anchorages, attachment hardware, and attachment bolts for Type 2 seat belt assemblies shall:

[W]ithstand a 3,000 pound force applied to the lap belt portion of the seat belt assembly simultaneously with a 3,000 pound force applied to the shoulder belt portion of the seat belt assembly, when tested in accordance with S5.2 of this standard.

S5.2 establishes the positioning, force, and duration requirements for testing Type 2 seat belt assemblies under S4.2.2.

I hope you find this information helpful.If you have any further questions please call Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Council

ref:210
d.5/22/03

NCC-112:Ccalamita:mar:4/25/03:62992:OCC 002323
CC: NCC-110 Subj/Chron, Redbook (2), interp. stds. 208, 210
U:ncc\interps\210\002323cmc.doc

ID: 002396.drn

Robert Douglas, Chair
School Bus Manufacturers Technical Council
IC Corporation
751 South Harkrider
Conway, AR 72034

Dear Mr. Douglas:

This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength. You supplemented your letter with information provided in a December 12, 2002, meeting with agency staff and in telephone conversations with Dorothy Nakama of my staff. You asked four questions about a December 13, 2001, final rule ^[1] responding to petitions for reconsideration of a November 5, 1998, final rule. The effective date of the 2001 final rule is January 1, 2003.




Question One Is the Cover to the "Fuel Sending Unit" a "Maintenance Access Panel?"

Your first question is about Standard No. 221s exclusion of "maintenance access panels" (MAPs) from the performance requirements set out in S5.1 of the standard. Interior MAPs are excluded from the requirements of the standard if they lie forward of the passenger compartment or are within the passenger compartment but are limited in size (not exceeding 305 mm when measured across any two points diametrically on opposite sides of the opening)(See S5.2.1(b)). "Maintenance access panel" is defined as: "a body panel which must be moved or removed to provide access to one or more serviceable components." A "serviceable component" is defined in part as "any part of the bus, of either a mechanical or electrical nature, which is explicitly identified by the bus chassis and/or body manufacturer in the owners manual or factory service manual as requiring routine maintenance actions at intervals of one year or less ." (Emphasis added.)

You ask whether an access panel (the cover to the "fuel sending unit") would be excluded if it were within the 305 mm size limit of S5.2.1(b) but covered a component that does not need routine maintenance at intervals of one year or less. The answer is no. The panel would not be considered a MAP because it does not provide access to a "serviceable component," i.e., a component that the owners manual or service manual identifies as one needing routine maintenance actions at intervals of one year or less.




Question Two Provisions Applying to Exterior MAPs

Your second question asks for confirmation that all exterior MAPs are exempt from S5, including S5.1 and S5.1.1. The answer is no. The December 13, 2001, final rule responding to petitions for reconsideration did not change the definition of "maintenance access panel" (provided in our response to the first question) that was specified in the final rule of November 5, 1998, (63 FR 59732). The definition of "MAP" does not exclude exterior MAPs from S5. However, some exterior MAPs may be excluded from S5.1 if they meet the exclusions specified in S5.2.1(c) for "trim and decorative parts which do not contribute to the strength of the joint, support members such as rub rails which are entirely outside of body panels, doors and windows, ventilation panels, and engine access covers."




Question Three Relationship Between S5.1 and S5.1.1

Your third question was whether joints excluded under S5.2 from the requirements of S5.1 are also excluded from the requirements of S5.1.1. The answer is yes.

Question Four Test Specimens for Body Panel Joints Less than 203 MM and Joints Less Than 305 MM

Your fourth question asks whether there is an error in S6.1.2 because it is inconsistent with S6.1.1. Both sections describe how test specimens are prepared for the tensile test. S6.1.1 describes preparation of a specimen from "a body panel joint [that] is 203 mm [8 inches] or longer." S6.1.2 describes preparation of a specimen from a joint "less than 305 mm [12 inches] long." You are correct that the reference to 305 mm in S6.1.2 is an error, and should instead be 203 mm. The agency did not intend to change the substantive meaning of S6.1.2, as that section existed prior to the November 1998 final rule. Prior to the rule, S6.1.2 had referred to joints "less than 8 inches long." The reference to 305 mm (12 inches) in S6.1.2 is therefore incorrect.

Thank you for bringing the error to our attention. We plan to correct it in a technical amendment to the standard.

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,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:221
12/23/02





---




^[1] 66 FR 64358.

ID: 002523Lear_marking_flaps

Mr. Scott Willard
Seating Systems Division
Lear Corporation
21557 Telegraph Road
Southfield, MI 48034

Dear Mr. Willard:

This responds to your letter concerning the lower anchorage marking requirements in S9.5(b) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 225, "Child Restraint Anchorage Systems" (49 CFR 571.225).

FMVSS No. 225 requires vehicle manufacturers to install child restraint anchorage systems in vehicles, consisting of two lower bars and a tether anchorage. The standard contains "marking and conspicuity" requirements for the lower bars to increase the likelihood that consumers will know that a child restraint anchorage system is present in their vehicle and that they will use it. The standard requires manufacturers to mark the vehicle seat back with a small circle where the bars are located (S9.5(a)), or to install a child restraint anchorage system such that the bars are visible (S9.5(b)). S9.5(b) includes a provision that: "The bars may be covered by a removable cap or cover, provided that the cap or cover is permanently marked with words, symbols or pictograms whose meaning is explained [in] the owners manual."

You ask whether S9.5(b) permits the bars to be covered by "a small fabric flap"; that is, whether such a flap could constitute a permissible "removable cover" over the lower anchorage bar. You state that, to use the lower anchorages, "the flap(s) would need to be folded out of the way, thus exposing the lower anchorages (otherwise visible per section 9.5(b))." You also state that the flaps would be permanently attached to the vehicle seat. They would be marked with words, symbols or pictograms, as required by S9.5(b), the meaning of which would be explained in writing in the vehicle owners manual.

Our answer is the marked fabric flaps you describe would be permitted by S9.5(b) of FMVSS No. 225. We also note that the standard does not require the marked covers for otherwise visible lower anchorages to be permanently attached to the vehicle.

In an April 19, 2004, telephone conversation with Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff, you asked whether a strap or other means must be provided with the flaps to hold them out of the way of the anchorage bars when a consumer wants to use the bars to attach a child restraint. The answer is there is no requirement in the standard that a means must be provided to hold the covers out of the way of the bars.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:225
d.5/4/04

ID: 002661cmc

Ms. Cassie V. Mason-Gibbs
Installation Management Agency
North East Region Office, Logistics Division
Transportation Branch
SFIM-NE-LD-T, Bldg 5A, Rm 204
Fort Monroe, VA 23651-1048

Dear Ms. Mason-Gibbs:

This is in response to your e-mail dated April 17, 2003, and several phone calls with Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff concerning the modification of a seven-passenger van currently being leased by the U.S. Army. As explained below, a conversion company may modify the van so long as the modifications do not take the vehicle out of compliance with any of the relevant Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs).

In your letter, you stated that you are considering modifying a model year 2001 Dodge Caravan by either "removing the middle bench seat and replacing it with chairs that swivel (Captains seat) and lock in the 180 degree position (to travel backwards)" or reversing the orientation of the middle bench seat so that it faces rearward. You further stated that several conversion companies refused to perform the work because it was their contention that such modifications would be illegal. In a phone conversation with Mr. Ernest Mitchell from your branch, he stated that the modifications are intended to allow passengers the ability to perform "office work" and conduct meetings in the vehicle.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations to you. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). Because NHTSA recognized the unique transportation needs of the Armed Forces and the specialized functions of many military vehicles, we established a limited exemption for military vehicles. [1] Under 49 CFR 571.7(c), vehicles or items of equipment "manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications" are exempted from our Federal safety standards. However, the exception would not apply in this instance because the desired modifications would not further a purpose that is specific or unique to military operations. The described modifications would simply allow passengers the ability to perform "office work" in the vehicle. Therefore, the "Armed Forces" exception would not apply.

While our regulations generally apply to the manufacture of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, 49 U.S.C. 30122(b) provides that:

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard[.]

Therefore, none of the above-listed businesses, including a conversion company, could modify the leased van if the resulting modification removed the vehicle from compliance with any applicable FMVSS. This "render inoperative" prohibition does not apply to modifications vehicle owners make to their own vehicles.

Of the FMVSSs established by NHTSA, five are directly relevant to the modification of a seat in a model year 2001 vehicle: FMVSS No. 207, Seating systems; FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection; FMVSS No. 209, Seat belt assemblies; FMVSS No. 210, Seat belt assembly anchorages; and FMVSS No. 225, Child restraint anchorage systems. Each standard is discussed below.

FMVSS No. 207

FMVSS No. 207 establishes requirements for seats, seat attachment assemblies, and installation to minimize the possibility of their failure during vehicle impact. A conversion company modifying the vehicles seats would have to ensure that the new seating configuration complied with this standard.

FMVSS No. 208

Under FMVSS No. 208, if any of the above-mentioned businesses were to install captain-style swivel chairs, one of two seat belt systems would be required. The first option would require a Type 2 [2] seat belt assembly that would meet the adjustment and latch mechanism requirements while in any position in which it can be occupied while the vehicle is in motion (S4.2.4.2(i)). The second option would require that when the seat is in the forward-facing position, it would have a conforming Type 2 seat belt, in which the upper torso restraint would be detachable at the buckle. In any other seating position, the seat would be required to have a conforming Type 1 seat belt or the pelvic portion of a Type 2 seat belt assembly (S4.2.4.2(ii)). Also, any seat belt assembly anchorage installed for the modification would have to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 210.

If any of the above-mentioned businesses were to modify the bench seat so it were rear-facing, then it would be subject to seat belt requirements of S4.1.5.1 of FMVSS No. 210. S4.1.5.1(a)(2) requires that the rear-facing bench seat be equipped with Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assemblies at each seating position.

FMVSS No. 209

FMVSS No. 209 applies to seat belt assemblies as motor vehicle equipment. Any seat belt assembly installed as a result of the modification would have to be certified by the assemblys manufacturer as complying with FMVSS No. 209 in order for the vehicle to remain in compliance with this standard.

FMVSS No. 210

FMVSS No. 210 establishes requirements for seat belt assembly anchorages to insure their proper location for effective occupant restraint and to reduce the likelihood of their failure. If any of the above-mentioned businesses were to modify the vehicle, the business would have to ensure that the seat belt assembly anchorages would meet the location and strength requirements in the standard.

FMVSS No. 225

If a conversion company (or any of the businesses listed in 49 U.S.C. 30122(b)) were to modify the vehicle, the vehicle would have to maintain compliance with FMVSS No. 225. Under S4.2, a conforming tether anchorage would be required at no fewer than three forward-facing rear designated seating positions. Further, the modified vehicle would be required to maintain the same number of lower anchorage systems at forward-facing rear seats as are currently in the unmodified vehicle.

I hope that you find this information of use. If you have any further questions please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman

Chief Counsel
ref:207
d.6/20/03





---

[1] See, letter to Mr. Raymond M. Momboisse, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Services; October 18, 1988; and letter to Donald C.J. Gray, Federal Supply Service; August 23, 1990.

[2] Under FMVSS No. 209 a Type 1 seat belt assembly is a lap belt for pelvic restraint and a Type 2 seat belt assembly is a combination of pelvic and upper torso restraints.

ID: 002661cmc_new

Ms. Cassie V. Mason-Gibbs
Installation Management Agency
North East Region Office, Logistics Division
Transportation Branch
SFIM-NE-LD-T, Bldg 5A, Rm 204
Fort Monroe, VA 23651-1048

Dear Ms. Mason-Gibbs:

This is in response to your e-mail dated April 17, 2003, and several phone calls with Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff concerning the modification of a seven-passenger van currently being leased by the U.S. Army. As explained below, a conversion company may modify the van so long as the modifications do not take the vehicle out of compliance with any of the relevant Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs).

In your letter, you stated that you are considering modifying a model year 2001 Dodge Caravan by either "removing the middle bench seat and replacing it with chairs that swivel (Captains seat) and lock in the 180 degree position (to travel backwards)" or reversing the orientation of the middle bench seat so that it faces rearward. You further stated that several conversion companies refused to perform the work because it was their contention that such modifications would be illegal. In a phone conversation with Mr. Ernest Mitchell from your branch, he stated that the modifications are intended to allow passengers the ability to perform "office work" and conduct meetings in the vehicle.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations to you. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). Because NHTSA recognized the unique transportation needs of the Armed Forces and the specialized functions of many military vehicles, we established a limited exemption for military vehicles. [1] Under 49 CFR 571.7(c), vehicles or items of equipment "manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications" are exempted from our Federal safety standards. However, the exception would not apply in this instance because the desired modifications would not further a purpose that is specific or unique to military operations. The described modifications would simply allow passengers the ability to perform "office work" in the vehicle. Therefore, the "Armed Forces" exception would not apply.

While our regulations generally apply to the manufacture of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, 49 U.S.C. 30122(b) provides that:

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard[.]

Therefore, none of the above-listed businesses, including a conversion company, could modify the leased van if the resulting modification removed the vehicle from compliance with any applicable FMVSS. This "render inoperative" prohibition does not apply to modifications vehicle owners make to their own vehicles.

Of the FMVSSs established by NHTSA, five are directly relevant to the modification of a seat in a model year 2001 vehicle: FMVSS No. 207, Seating systems; FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection; FMVSS No. 209, Seat belt assemblies; FMVSS No. 210, Seat belt assembly anchorages; and FMVSS No. 225, Child restraint anchorage systems. Each standard is discussed below.

FMVSS No. 207

FMVSS No. 207 establishes requirements for seats, seat attachment assemblies, and installation to minimize the possibility of their failure during vehicle impact. A conversion company modifying the vehicles seats would have to ensure that the new seating configuration complied with this standard.

FMVSS No. 208

Under FMVSS No. 208, if any of the above-mentioned businesses were to install captain-style swivel chairs, one of two seat belt systems would be required. The first option would require a Type 2 [2] seat belt assembly that would meet the adjustment and latch mechanism requirements while in any position in which it can be occupied while the vehicle is in motion (S4.2.4.2(i)). The second option would require that when the seat is in the forward-facing position, it would have a conforming Type 2 seat belt, in which the upper torso restraint would be detachable at the buckle. In any other seating position, the seat would be required to have a conforming Type 1 seat belt or the pelvic portion of a Type 2 seat belt assembly (S4.2.4.2(ii)). Also, any seat belt assembly anchorage installed for the modification would have to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 210.

If any of the above-mentioned businesses were to modify the bench seat so it were rear-facing, then it would be subject to seat belt requirements of S4.1.5.1 of FMVSS No. 210. S4.1.5.1(a)(2) requires that the rear-facing bench seat be equipped with Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assemblies at each seating position.

FMVSS No. 209

FMVSS No. 209 applies to seat belt assemblies as motor vehicle equipment. Any seat belt assembly installed as a result of the modification would have to be certified by the assemblys manufacturer as complying with FMVSS No. 209 in order for the vehicle to remain in compliance with this standard.

FMVSS No. 210

FMVSS No. 210 establishes requirements for seat belt assembly anchorages to insure their proper location for effective occupant restraint and to reduce the likelihood of their failure. If any of the above-mentioned businesses were to modify the vehicle, the business would have to ensure that the seat belt assembly anchorages would meet the location and strength requirements in the standard.

FMVSS No. 225

If a conversion company (or any of the businesses listed in 49 U.S.C. 30122(b)) were to modify the vehicle, the vehicle would have to maintain compliance with FMVSS No. 225. Under S4.2, a conforming tether anchorage would be required at no fewer than three forward-facing rear designated seating positions. Further, the modified vehicle would be required to maintain the same number of lower anchorage systems at forward-facing rear seats as are currently in the unmodified vehicle.

I hope that you find this information of use. If you have any further questions please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:207
d.6/20/03





---

[1] See, letter to Mr. Raymond M. Momboisse, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Services; October 18, 1988; and letter to Donald C.J. Gray, Federal Supply Service; August 23, 1990.

[2] Under FMVSS No. 209 a Type 1 seat belt assembly is a lap belt for pelvic restraint and a Type 2 seat belt assembly is a combination of pelvic and upper torso restraints.

ID: 002721cmc

Mr. Lane Francis
Rem Manufacturing Ltd.
2180 Oman Drive
Swift Current, SK S9H 3X4

Dear Mr. Francis:

This responds to your e-mail letter dated April 23, 2003, and phone conversations with Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff, in which you ask if a diesel-powered grain vacuum (the Grain Vac) manufactured by your company would be classified as a "motor vehicle." As explained below, based on the information you provided us, we would not consider the Grain Vac a "motor vehicle" for the purposes of our regulations.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations. Title 49 U. S. Code (U.S.C) Chapter 301 authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to prescribe Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 30102(a)(6) defines "motor vehicle" as:

[A] vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.

In your letter you stated that the Grain Vac is manufactured primarily for use in agricultural operations, and that it "will occasionally be towed on highways and roads between its actual operation at agricultural venues." You described the Grain Vac as being permanently mounted to an undercarriage, "which is essentially a guarded hollow frame."

Based on the information you provided, including the pictures enclosed with your letter, it is our opinion that the Grain Vac is not a motor vehicle within the statutory definition. The Grain Vac is manufactured primarily for agricultural operations, and is intended for use on public roadways only to move between job sites. Contrast this with a

grain trailer, which may be used to transport grain to market. Because the Grain Vac is not a Motor vehicle, it is not subject to any of our regulations including the FMVSSs. While our initial determination is that the Grain Vac is not a "motor vehicle" for purposes of our regulations, we may revisit this conclusion if additional information becomes available that would warrant further examination.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:VSA
d.5/27/03

ID: 002727rbm

David Robertson, Manager
Environmental and Safety Engineering
Mazda North American Operations
1500 Enterprise Drive
Allen Park, MI 48101-2053

Dear Mr. Robertson:

This responds to your request asking whether a driver and passenger seat belt reminder system under development by Mazda would violate any Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). Our understanding of the Mazda system, based on a meeting between staff from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and Mazda, is that the contemplated system is designed to meet the new European New Car Assessment Program criteria for belt minders. The Mazda system, as described, is not prohibited by any FMVSS.

According to your letter, the Mazda system would consist of a reminder system that would trigger if either the driver or front passenger fails to buckle his or her seat belt by the time the vehicle reaches a forward speed of 20 km/h (12.5 mph). The reminder will not sound when the vehicle transmission is in reverse. Once triggered, the reminder system will produce an audible warning signal that will continue for 90 seconds or until the seat belts are fastened, whichever occurs first. This audible signal is indistinguishable in tone from the warning signal used by Mazda to meet the mandatory seat belt warning system required by S7.3 of FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection. S7.3 of that standard requires the driver's seating position to be equipped with a seat belt warning system that activates, under specified circumstances when the seat belt is not buckled, a continuous or intermittent audible signal for a period of "not less than 4 seconds and not more than 8 seconds," and a continuous or flashing warning light for not less than 60 seconds after the ignition switch is turned on.

The prohibition on any audible signal lasting longer than 8 seconds reflects a statutory requirement imposed by Congress in response to public resistance to seat belt interlock systems. [1] 49 U.S.C. 30124 provides, in relevant part, that a motor vehicle safety standard "may not require or allow a manufacturer to comply with the standard

By using...a buzzer designed to indicate a safety belt is not in use, except a buzzer that operates only during the 8-second period after the ignition is turned to the 'start' or 'on' position."

While the statute prohibits NHTSA from requiring, or specifying as a compliance option, an audible seat belt warning that sounds outside of the specified 8-second period, it does not prohibit vehicle manufacturers from placing such systems in their vehicles. However, given FMVSS No. 208's requirement that the required seat belt warning be no longer than 8 seconds, a vehicle manufacturer wishing to provide a voluntary audible signal must provide some means of differentiating the voluntarily provided signal from the required signal. Differentiation is required so that NHTSA can definitively determine whether the warning signal meets the requirements of the standard in a compliance test.

One way to differentiate between the two signals is to utilize different sounds for each warning signal. The Mazda system, as contemplated, would not do this. Another way to differentiate between the two signals is a clearly distinguishable lapse in time between the two signals. While generally speaking, the Mazda system would provide a distinguishable lapse in time, there are instances where there may not be such a lapse under real world operating conditions.

According to your letter, the warning signal used by Mazda to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 208 continues for six seconds from the time the ignition is turned on or until the driver's seat belt has been engaged, while the non-mandatory belt reminder system would trigger once the vehicle had reached a forward speed of approximately 12.5 mph. Under most circumstances, it is unlikely that this 12.5 mph forward speed would occur within six seconds of engaging the ignition. However, in some circumstances it would be possible to achieve this speed quickly enough to preclude a vehicle occupant from distinguishing between the two, separate warning signals.

Nevertheless, we have determined that the Mazda system would not violate S7.3 of FMVSS No. 208. The fact that, under limited circumstances, a particular vehicle occupant may be unable to distinguish between the two warning signals is not determinative. As noted above, the distinction between the two signals is needed to determine whether the mandatory signal complies with FMVSS No. 208. The Mazda system, as contemplated, will comply with S7.3 when tested in accordance with the applicable laboratory test procedure for FMVSS No. 208, TP208-12. Under that test procedure, the transmission is never moved from "park" once the ignition is engaged. Accordingly, the second, voluntary warning signal will not sound because it is only engaged once the vehicle achieves a particular forward speed. Accordingly, the system will not prevent NHTSA from clearly determining whether the requirements of S7.3 have been met.

I hope this information addresses your concerns. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Rebecca MacPherson of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:208
d.5/7/03





---

[1]See H.R. Rep. No. 93-1452 (to accompany S355), at pp. 44-45 (1974), reprinted in 1974 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6108.

ID: 002769drn

J. Adam Krugh IV
Inventor
ALLSTOP
3912 West 73^rd Terrace
Shawnee Mission, KS 66208

Dear Mr. Krugh:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of how the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations (NHTSAs) regulations apply to a device you have invented, a red lamp to be placed on school bus roofs, that you believe would enhance safety for children getting on and off school buses. Our answer is provided below.

You write that your device, the ALLSTOP, is "designed to overcome the line of sight problems created by todays taller vehicles and wider roadways." You believe that with the ALLSTOP, other drivers in all directions of the bus will have adequate visible warning that the bus is loading or unloading children. A brochure accompanying your letter depicts the ALLSTOP as a red lamp attached to a metal rod in the middle of the school bus roof that stands upright perpendicular to the roof.

In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated that the ALLSTOP would only stand upright when the school bus door is open. When upright, the device would flash, similar to a "police light" with a rotating halogen lamp, or would flash by a red LED strobe light. At all other times (i.e., when the door is closed and the school bus is in motion), the ALLSTOP is not illuminated and lies flat, parallel to the school bus roof. You state that a motorized base moves the ALLSTOP up and down. You further state that the device can be manually overridden by the school bus driver to not deploy. You state that details about the ALLSTOP, such as the length of the metal rod, the type of lamp used in the device, and its flash rate, are yet to be finalized. You also stated that it is your hope that the ALLSTOP, a patented product, will be used on both new school buses and as aftermarket equipment on school buses that are already owned by schools and school districts.

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has used this authority to issue Standard No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. This agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards. Also, it is unlawful for dealers to sell motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment that do not meet applicable standards.

Under Standard No. 108, non-standard lighting devices are prohibited on new vehicles if they impair the effectiveness of lighting devices required by Standard No. 108. See S5.1.3. It is our opinion that a device such as the ALLSTOP would impair the effectiveness of the required equipment.

S5.1.4 of Standard No. 108 requires school buses to be equipped with a system of four red signal lamps, or four red and four amber signal lamps, designed to meet SAE Standard J887 School Bus Red Signal Lamps, July 1964, and installed at the top and evenly spaced from the vertical centerline of the bus. These lamps must flash alternately at a rate of 60-120 cycles per minute.

As we have said before, traffic safety is enhanced by the familiarity of drivers with established lighting schemes, which facilitates their ability to instantly and unhesitatingly recognize the meaning lamps convey and respond to them. The required school bus signal lamp system provides an important and standardized message. It is our opinion that the addition of a novel signal lamp such as the ALLSTOP that rises from the middle of the school bus roof at the same time as the school bus signal lamp system activates would divert a driver's attention from the required signal lamps and cause confusion with respect to their meaning, and thereby impair the effectiveness of the required lamps. [1] , [2]

With respect to the aftermarket, 49 U.S.C. 30122 has the effect of requiring that the installation of any aftermarket vehicle lamp, by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, must not "make inoperative" any element of design or device installed on a vehicle in accordance with Standard No. 108. As with original equipment, we regard the addition of a novel signal lamp such as the ALLSTOP to make inoperative a vehicle's original required lighting equipment by diverting a driver's attention from the required signal lamps, and causing confusion with respect to their meaning.

Modifications made by a school bus owner itself are not prohibited by our statute. However, we urge owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about lighting issues, please contact Mr. Taylor Vinson. Questions about school bus issues may be addressed to Ms. Dorothy Nakama. Both attorneys may be reached at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108#VSA#571.3
d.5/22/03

ID: 002775cmc_phoneno

Mr. David E. Campbell
David Campbell & Associates, Inc.
PO Box 402
Westfield Center, OH 44251-0402

Dear Mr. Campbell,

This responds to your December 4, 2002, letter and conversation with

Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff concerning the labeling requirements for a child restraint system (CRS). You stated that a foreign manufacturer is planning to import CRSs into the U.S. and would like to use a non-U.S. telephone number to comply with the labeling requirements under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child restraint systems. The answer to your question is that use of a non-U.S. number is not prohibited under the labeling requirement, but we do have concerns about using it.

One of the most effective ways to ensure that owners of CRSs obtain the free remedy provided under a recall is through direct notification of the customer. By providing convenient methods for purchasers to register their name and address with the manufacturer, manufacturers can increase the number of customers that receive direct notification of safety related defects or noncompliances with FMVSSs. To provide convenient methods to register, FMVSS No. 213 requires that each add-on child restraint system have a postage-paid registration form and be permanently labeled with the following statement, inserting an address and telephone number:

"Child restraints could be recalled for safety reasons. You must register this restraint to be reached in a recall. Send your name, address, and the restraints model number and manufacturing date to (insert address) or call (insert telephone number). For recall information, call the U.S. Governments Auto Safety Hotline at 1-800-424-9393 (202-366-0123 in the DC area)." S5.5.2(m).

The labeling requirement in conjunction with the postage-paid registration card requirement encourages CRS owners to register for direct notification of a possible recall. Under 49 U.S.C. 30118, a manufacturer is required to notify owners and purchasers of a noncompliance or safety-related defect in vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment, including CRS. As we noted at the time this provision was adopted, requiring both an address and a telephone number on the label "make[s] it easier for a person to register" and "get the information they need." See 57 FR at 41432. Inclusion of a telephone number is particularly important for subsequent owners, who most probably would not have the postage-paid registration card.

While use of a non-U.S. telephone number is not prohibited under the FMVSS No. 213 labeling requirement, it could reduce the percentage of recalled seats returned to the manufacturer to remedy a defect or non-compliance. The cost of a long distance, out-of-country phone call could create a financial burden on CRS owners, possibly reducing the number of systems registered for recall notification, particularly by subsequent owners. By increasing the costs and inconvenience for registering a child restraint system, the number of systems registered would decrease, in turn decreasing the number of owners directly contacted in the event of a recall. The net effect of this could be that a larger number of defective or non-compliant CRSs would remain in use. For these reasons we believe a U.S. phone number should be used, and we would prefer (but do not require) manufacturers to provide a toll-free number.

A manufacturers decision not to use a U.S. phone number could have a bearing on the type of notification activities that the agency would require the manufacturer to undertake. Under 49 U.S.C. 30119(d)(2), the agency can require a manufacturer of equipment to provide public notice to effectuate the recall of a defective or noncompliant CRS. In the past, CRS manufacturers have provided notice through a variety of means including, but not limited to, retailers, child safety centers, pediatricians, and the media. In recalls of a product with an out-of-country telephone registration number, the agency could require more extensive public notice efforts in order to ensure notification of owners unable to be reached directly because of an inconvenient and burdensome registration process.

Please note that foreign manufacturers and importers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment are required to designate an agent in the United States. 49 CFR 551.45, Service of process on foreign manufacturers and importers, states that importers of motor vehicle equipment, including CRSs, are required to designate a permanent resident of the United States as an agent for service of process.

If you have any further questions please contact Christopher Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:213
d.2/10/03

ID: 003011cmc

Ms. Patricia Cunningham
London Taxi North America
80 Union Avenue
Sudbury, MA 01776

Dear Ms. Cunningham,

This is in response to your interpretation request via e-mail dated December 13, 2002, and your conversation with Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff, asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child restraint systems. In your letter, you state that your company intends to import taxi vehicles that have an "integrated" (built-in) child booster seat in the rear. You further state that "[t]he dummy size we tested with and designated for use in our [built-in] booster seat is the 6 year old" and that the seat is recommended only for children 49 to 80 pounds (22 36 kg). You ask if the booster seat must comply with the seat back requirements of FMVSS No. 213, even though only the 6-year-old dummy is used to test the booster seat. As explained below, the answer to your question is no.

Under 49 U.S.C. 30112 a person may not import into the United States, "any motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter takes effect unless the vehicle or equipment complies with the standard[.]" This compliance requirement includes child restraint systems, which are subject to the provisions of FMVSS No. 213.

FMVSS No. 213 specifies requirements for child restraint systems, including built-in child restraint systems, in order to reduce injuries to children in motor vehicles. S5.2.1.1 of FMVSS No. 213 states:

Except as provided in S5.2.1.2, each child restraint system other than a car bed shall provide restraint against rearward movement of the head of the child (rearward in relation to the child) by means of a continuous seat back which is an integral part of the system[.]

S5.2.1.1 specifies seat back height requirements, seat back width requirements, and rearward rotation limits of test dummies. S5.2.1.2 requires that conformance to the requirements of S5.2.1.1 is determined using the dummy that corresponds to the heaviest weight for which the system is recommended. Under S7.1, a system recommended for use by a child with a weight of 40 pounds (18 kg) or greater would use the 6-year-old dummy described in 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart I for compliance testing. However, S5.2.1.2 states that the 6-year-old dummy is not to be used to determine the applicability of or compliance with S5.2.1.1.

The built-in booster seats in the vehicles you intend to import are recommended for children in the weight range of 49 to 80 pounds (22 to 36 kg), and therefore would require use of the 6-year-old-dummy to determine compliance with S5.2.1.1. Because under S5.2.1.2 the 6-year-old dummy is not used for this determination and the built-in booster seats are not recommended for use by children of a weight that would be tested with a different dummy, the taxi booster seats do not have to comply with S5.2.1.1.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any further questions please contact Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:213
d.1/31/03