ID: aiam4488

"Dear Mr. Faber: Thank you for your letter concerning the requirement of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. In particular, you asked for an interpretation of the provisions of S4.3 of the standard. I regret the delay in answering your questions. S4.3 of Standard No. 210 provides, in part, that 'Anchorages for automatic and for dynamically tested seat belt assemblies that meet the frontal crash protection requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208 (49 CFR Part 571.208) are exempt from the location requirements of this section.' (Emphasis added.) You first asked the agency to confirm that anchorages to be used with automatic and dynamically tested safety belts that meet the requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208 are exempt from all of the anchorage location requirements of S4.3. You are correct that S4.3 of Standard No. 210 provides that such anchorages are exempt from all the location requirements. The amendment to exempt anchorages of dynamically tested seat belt assemblies from the anchorage location requirements of Standard No. 210 became effective on May 5, 1986, well in advance of the September 1, 1989 effective date for dynamic testing of manual belts. This effective date indicates that the agency did not intend to limit the exemption from the anchorage location requirements to manual safety belts that were required to be dynamically tested. Additionally, the exemption applies to dynamically tested seat belt assemblies that 'meet' the frontal crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208, rather than to vehicles 'subject to' the frontal crash protection requirements of that Standard. This language indicates that NHTSA intended to allow manufacturers to take advantage of the exemption from the anchorage location requirements for dynamically tested safety belts before the dynamic testing requirements were applicable to such belts. Accordingly, if a vehicle is equipped with a manual safety belt at either or both front outboard seating positions, and the anchorage or anchorages for those belts do not comply with the anchorage location requirements set forth in S4.3 of Standard No. 210, the manufacturer must certify that the belts attached at any such anchorage points comply with S5.1 of Standard No. 208. In your second question, you asked the following: We also understand that such dynamic testing may be combined with other compliance testing, and the vehicle or vehicles used may be equipped 'as delivered' for sale to a consumer. Accordingly, the vehicle structure with built-in energy management features, seats with designed-in anti-submarining construction, energy absorbing instrument panel, collapsible steering column, driver and/or passenger airbag(s), anti-lacerative windshield glass, emergency tensioning retractors, etc. may be installed and functional, where applicable, during the compliance crash test. During its compliance testing, NHTSA combines a test of the occupant crash protection capabilities of automatic or manual safety belts with testing done to determine compliance with other standards. The agency tests vehicles to the frontal barrier crash requirements of Standard Nos. 208, 212, 219, and 301 in a single barrier impact. In conducting these compliance tests, NHTSA tests vehicles in their 'as delivered' form with all items of standard equipment present in the vehicle. Thus, if a vehicle has devices, such as an air bag system or pre-tensioning devices for the belts, installed in the vehicle as items of standard equipment, NHTSA's compliance testing is conducted with those items in place and fully functioning. If our compliance testing shows that a vehicle tested with a manual safety belt at one or both front outboard seating positions complies with the occupant crash protection requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208, then the anchorages for the belt or belts would not be subject to the anchorage location requirements of S4.3 of Standard No. 210. If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel";

ID: 86-5.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/21/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Lisa Kreeger

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Lisa Kreeger Reichert, Strauss & Reed 2510 Carew Tower Cincinnati, OH 15202

Dear Ms. Kreeger:

This responds to your letters of June 27, 1986, and July 11, 1986, and your subsequent phone conversations with Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning the safety belt installation requirements for multipurpose passenger vehicles and buses. I regret the delay in our response and hope the following information is of assistance to you.

As Mr. Oesch discussed with you, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, sets forth the safety belt installation requirements for passenger cars, trucks, multipurpose passenger vehicles and buses. The standard, a copy of which is enclosed, regulates only the installation of safety belts and does not require their use. However, the Federal Highway Administration's Office of Motor Carriers has issued a regulation (49 CFR Part 392.161 that requires safety belt use by operators of trucks and buses involved in interstate commerce. Belt use is also governed by State mandatory use laws.

S4.2.2 and S4.3 of the standard set forth the safety belt installation requirements for new multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's). Our regulations (49 CFR 571.3) define an MPV as a "motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." S4.2.2 and S4.3 of Standard No. 208 require the installation of a safety belt for each designated seating position in a MPV.

S4.4 of the standard sets forth the safety belt installation requirements for buses. Our regulations define a bus as a "motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons." S4.4 of Standard No. 208 requires the installation of a safety belt at only the driver's designated seating position in a bus. The agency has set additional safety belt requirements for school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less. S5(b) of standard No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection, requires the installation of a safety belt at the passenger seats in those small school buses. A copy of Standard No. 222 is enclosed.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Erika Jones, ESQ. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th St., SW, Room 5219 Washington, DC 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

Pursuant to a phone conversation with a receptionist in your office today, I learned that my previous written request request for information had not been received or responded to. Enclosed is a copy of that request. I also spoke to Mr. Ash on July 1, 1896, asking for further information. As of this date I have not received a response from your agency.

Would you please send me a copy of the interpretation of Title 49 of the Code of federal Regulations, Chapter 571, Number 208, Section 4.4 If there are other sections that are applicable to either the bus (more than 10 passengers) or van (less than 10 passengers) seat belt requirement, please include those interpretations also. It is my understanding that in a bus, only the operator must wear a seat belt, while in a van, all passengers must wear seat belts, but I am hoping to find authority to confirm that understanding.

Thank you,

Lisa Kreeger Law Clerk

June 27, 1986

Erika Jones, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W., Room 400 Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

Today in a telephone conversation with Mr. Stephen Ash, learned that copies of formal interpretations of federal regulations be obtained from you upon written request. Would you please send me a copy of the interpretation of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 571, Number 208, Section 4.4. If there are other sections that are applicable to the seatbelt requirements for leased buses that carry between 15 and 25 passengers, please include those interpretations also. It is my understanding that only the operator must wear a seat belt but I am hoping to find authority to confirm that understanding.

Thank you,

Lisa Kreeger

ID: 08-006966rev.drn

ID: nht75-3.36

DATE: 08/13/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Construction Machinery Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 18, 1975, question whether a system which pressurizes a water tank on a concrete mixer by means of air from the truck's air brake system would violate the requirements of Standard No. 121, Air brake systems.

The answer to your question is no. Standard No. 121 does not contain a prohibition on the use of air pressure from the air brake system for powering auxiliary devices. The vehicle must of course conform to Standard No. 121 following installation of the device if the installation occurs prior to the first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale.

Although not a requirement of the standard, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does consider it appropriate that a pressure protection valve be placed in the line to the auxiliary device so that a rupture of an auxiliary line does not cause depletion of air pressure in the brake system.

SINCERELY,

June 18, 1975

T. Herlichy, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Division

I've talked to Mr. Williams about the method we use to take air from the air system of a truck to pressurize the water tanks on truck mounted concrete mixers. He in turn suggested I write you for an opinion whether or not the system comes under the brake regulation 121 and, if it does, whether we comply with it.

Basically the design is shown on Page 31, which is enclosed. Valves 4 & 5 on Page 31, are the same as the valves shown on Page 22. An air line runs from Valve 4 up to a control valve that allows the operator to add air to the water tank.

To give you a better idea of how the entire operation goes, let me describe the sequence of events when loading, mixing, and hauling concrete. First of all, the truck is driven under the batching plant at the ready mix yard and loaded with concrete. At the same time the driver fills the water tank with water. After the truck is loaded, it is driven out from under the plant to a mixing area where air is added to the water tank and the operator washes off whatever concrete that has accumulated on the mixer during charging. After the mixer is cleaned and the concrete is mixed, the truck is ready to go on the highway.

At this point no further air is taken from the truck system because either the water tank is completely pressurized or the operator will shut the air off to the water tank. So, while the truck is traveling from the ready mix plant to the job site, no air is taken from the truck brake system.

While on the job site the operator will add water to the mix and washdown the truck after the mixer is empty. He will again be taking air from the truck system. But before he returns to the highway either the water tank will be completely pressurized or the air shut off so that while he is traveling on the road no air will be used from the truck system.

I believe I have given you all the information needed, but if not, let me know what else is required and I will forward it to you.

CONSTRUCTION MACHINERY COMPANY

James E. Johnson, Chief Engineer Vice President-Director of Engineering

PRESSURE WATER SYSTEM

(Graphics omitted)

The air valves in the pressure water system are adjusted and set at the factory. Further adjustment should not be required except for possible adjustment of the height of dial as shown in illustration of leveling of water tank. The pressure regulator (1) is set to maintain a maximum pressure of 40 p.s.i. In the interest of safety this setting should not be exceeded. The relief valve (2) is set to crack open at 75 p.s.i. affording added protection for the system. Control valve (3) in the position shown, is admitting air to the tank, its normal operation position. Turning the valve handle 90 degrees clockwise shuts off the air supply and exhausts the air from the tank. When the air stops escaping, the water tank can be filled. Then moving the valve back to its original position will charge the tank with air. Valve (4) is a pressure hold-back valve. This valve prevents air from passing from the supply tank of the truck when the supply tank pressure is below 65 p.s.i. thus keeping pressure available for operating the truck brakes. Valve (5) is main shut off for all air to mixer water tank and controls.

To operate the pressure water system, open Valve "A". To add water to the drum, open Valve "C". To drain the entire system in freezing weather, open all valves "A", "B", "C", "D" and "F".

AIR SUPPLY TANK HOOK UP

HOOK INTO THE TRUCK AIR SUPPLY, USING THE METHOD SHOWN WHENEVER AIR IS TAKEN FROM THE TRUCK AIR SYSTEM FOR ANY MIXER CONTROL.

(Graphics omitted)

WATER TANK INSTALLATION (Illegible Data)

ID: 77-4.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/08/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; H. Dujoff for Joan Claybrook; NHTSA

TO: Martha Storts Amster

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 20, 1977, letter concerning Federal school bus safety standards. Your letter was forwarded to us by Ms. Margaret Costanza, Assistant to the President, since these standards are promulgated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

As you may know, several new school bus safety standards are applicable to school buses built after April 1, 1977. These standards were established in accordance with a directive from Congress in the Motor Vehicle and School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-492). Congress enacted that directive after determining that school buses deserved additional safety protection to prevent deaths and reduce injuries.

In your letter, you contend that our standard pertaining to school bus seating (Standard No. 222) requires seat spacing that is too small for older school children. It is our understanding after extensive consultations with bus manufacturers that the new school bus seat spacing requirements result in seat spacing that is essentially equivalent to seat spacing in buses manufactured prior to April 1. Therefore, most new school buses should be manufactured similar to older buses as far as seat spacing is concerned. Some school buses, however, may have slightly reduced seat spacing. We are aware of concerns expressed about reduced seat spacing in some new buses. We are not convinced that the problem originates from the requirements of Standard No. 222, however. Currently, we are examining buses manufactured in accordance with the requirements of the standard to determine whether a modification of the standard is necessary.

Maximum seat spacing has been controlled in buses to provide for the passive restraint of school bus occupants. The seat backs in the new buses are designed to absorb the force of children colliding with them during a crash. If seat spacing were increased, the seats in these buses would not be capable of absorbing sufficient impact force to protect children in accidents. The NHTSA adopted the passive restraint approach to school bus safety in response to public comments claiming that to require only seat belts in school buses would not be sufficient since the belts might not be used by many children. Accordingly, to provide a significant increase in occupant protection, the agency adopted the passive restraint approach to school bus seat safety.

In a final question in your letter, you ask about the costs and benefits of the new school bus safety standards' requirements. The agency has estimated that the total industry cost of compliance with those standards is approximately $ 40 million annually. The benefits should include a reduction in the number of deaths and injuries resulting from school bus accidents.

If I can be of further assistance to you, do not hesitate to contact me.

SINCERELY,

July 19, 1977

Dear Ms. Amstor:

Thank you so much for your letter and for taking the time to share your thoughts with me.

So that your letter might receive benefit of the best possible consideration, I hope you will not mind that I have asked other interested offices here to thoroughly review it and assist me by responding directly to you. I trust you will be hearing from them very shortly.

With all best wishes,

MARGART COSTANZA Assistant to The President

June 28, 1977

Midge Costanza The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington D.C.

Enclosed is recent correspondence that I believe should be brought to the attention of someone on President Carter's staff. Quite possibly ninety percent of the problems dealt with in the oval office are inherited. Let's hope this administration will have the foresight to prevent situations like this from developing in the future.

Martha Storts Amster

I would guess that President Carter knows the Luce family that owns Blue Bird Body Company. Fort Valley is only 60 miles from Plains.

June 20, 1977

Senator Dennis Deconcini

I am writing you concerning new safety regulations from the Department of Transportation as they apply to the school bus industry. My husband, Harry Amster, is a school bus distributor for Blue Bird Body Company, whose main plant is in Fort Valley, Georgia.

The particular regulations that concern me are those regarding seats and seat spacing. Harry has taken delivery on one bus, brought it to Arizona, showed it to the State Inspectors, and is awaiting their decision before taking delivery on the remaining buses already built in Georgia. When the inspectors saw this bus last Thursday, they did not pass it. They went back to the State to see how the others in their department interpreted this new law. They were calling people in California and in Washington to find out exactly what they think it means. The people at the plant in Fort Valley evidently interpreted the law as they understood it, and have built a whole bunch of buses that way. The crux of the problem is that someone got confused. The seats in the bus in Arizona are fine for elementary children, but most unsatisfactory for high school youngsters or adults. Extra padding on the back of the seats plus spacing requirements does not allow enough knee room. These requirements have added $ 1200.00 to the cost of each new bus. This, plus the fact that the cost of buses has risen 20% in the last 3 years, is pyramiding the costs that must be passed on to the school districts. As these costs rise, more and more states are going to state purchasing, thus eliminating the local distributors. My husband is a leader in his field, provides good service for his customers, has a serviceman and a truck on the road in Arizona to satisfy the needs of his customers and employs 50 people in his business.

So it appears to me that the fact that the school bus industry had the safest record of public transportation to offer was ignored when the law was passed. The position of the factory is that the buses meet the Federal requirements, so it's up to the distributor to sell this product to his customer. The State will have to compromise its position or the schools won't have buses in the fall. The fact that some kids on the Hopi Reservation have to ride a bus 80 miles one way to get to school with their legs jammed in small space will just be ignored. The fact that the school people did not want padding on the back of the seats because of vandalism and higher maintenance is of no consequence.

Who is the ultimate loser? What is the real cost of the new Department of Transportation standards for scholl buses? Were they necessary at all? Whatever the answers, there are certainly going to be some busy people all across the United States before the true implications of these new regulations are known. It would be impossible to estimate the productive man hours lost and the dollar value wasted because someone decided to set mandatory equalizing standards for the sake of conformity and protection.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION,

Martha Storts Amster

June 29, 1977

Representative Morris Udall

This is a follow up to my letter of last week to Dennis DeConcici about the school bus problem in Arizona.

My husband just returned from a trip to the Blue Bird Body Company in Fort Valley, Georgia. The Blue Bird factory people are making every effort to help straighten out the seating problems created by the new DOT standards. While Harry was there, he worked with them in the bus yard; they measured all the seats and the spacing between the rows. The decision was made to assess each individual district, school, and age of the potential riders. Harry called each district that was affected. Blue Bird is going to take out the seats in the 26 buses that are already built for Arizona. They will reinstall them according to the district's needs, providing this does not exceed the federal standards which are generally accepted to be 25 1/4 inches of kneespace. This is not adequate for adult seating. Enclosed is a copy of correspondence that Blue Bird used to determine its calculations. I doubt if it is customary for lawyers in Washington to ride school buses, much less, those on the Hopi reservation from Keams Canyon to Winslow. According to the wording in his letter, he cannot be held accountable, anyhow.

Harry said it was really hot in Georgia this week, and that he and the other fellows working with him knew how hot it was. I have a feeling it's really going to be hot for the men who have to change all those seats, because after they do the buses for Arizona, there are another 140 units already built for other school districts around the country. Those seats will probably have to be changed, too. I do not know what Blue Bird will do about the assembly line. Somebody ought to send the fellow in DOT who set those standards to Fort Valley with a screwdriver. Enclosed in a copy of a letter I received from Joe Luce, one of the owners of Blue Bird Body Company.

There is another requirement, Joint Strength Standard #221, that states that a joint must be 60% as strong as the two members it joins. As interpreted by Blue Bird, there are 330% more interior rivets, 175% more interpreted by Blue Bird. there are 330% more interior (Illegible Word) 175% more exterior rivets, and 57 joints more redesigned. This requirement added $ 523.00 per unit over last year's models. Blue Bird decided to use rivets; some of the other manufacturers plan to use (Illegible Word) I'm going to allow someone else to fuss about that requirement -- when they can't unglue the panels to repair damaged ones.

Harry said the trip to Fort Valley cost him about $ 1000.00. While he was gone, he missed a hid opening and lost two buses to one of his competitors -- so I don't think he plans to go back for a while. However, if there is any more legislation pending that concerns regulations on school buses, we would like to be notified so we can make arrangements to be in Washington for the hearing.

My mother, Ruth Storts, has been out of town: I talked with her yesterday and she told me she had received acknowledgement from the White House about the letter you took to Washington for us. It is really good to know that we have representatives from Arizona who try to do what they say they are going to do. Thank you for the excellent delivery service.

Martha Storts Amster

ID: 1985-03.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/03/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Alan R. Kroner

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Mr. Alan R. Kroner Republican Staff Illinois State Senate State Capitol Springfield, Illinois 62706

Dear Mr. Kroner:

Thank you for your letter of March 13, 1985, concerning Federal requirements for safety belts in modified vans and their effect on state safety belt use laws. I regret the delay in our response.

According to your letter, a handicapped individual purchased a van and had the front seat removed to permit him to operate the vehicle from his wheelchair. You first inquired whether the vehicle is required to be equipped with a safety belt under Federal law.

This agency has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, that requires the installation of occupant restraint systems in passenger cars, trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's). A copy of the standard is enclosed for your reference. Depending on its seating capacity and use, a "van" would be classified under our regulations as a bus, truck or MPV. Regardless of that classification, the vehicle manufacturer is required to install a safety belt system for the driver's seating position. Belt systems may be required at other seating positions as well, depending upon the vehicle's classification. These requirements apply to any vehicle until its first sale to a consumer.

While our safety standards apply only to new motor vehicles, there are some statutory restrictions on subsequent alterations. If a van were modified after its first sale to a consumer, then section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1397(a)(2)(A)) would apply. That section provides, in pertinent part:

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....

Accordingly, none of thoe commercial businesses could lawfully remove a safety belt installed in compliance with Standard No. 208, since such an action would "knowingly render inoperative" that safety device. This prohibition applies only to commercial businesses, not to individuals.

Vehicle owners may themselves remove a safety belt without violating Federal law. They would, however, have to comply with any State law on vehicle equipment.

Thus, in answer to your first question, a manufacturer of a van is required by Federal law to provide a safety belt system at the driver's position, and certain commercial businesses are prohibited from removing the belt.

You also requested our opinion as to whether the owner/driver of the modified van would be required to wear a safety belt under the new Illinois safety belt use law. We do not believe it would be appropriate for this agency to offer an opinion on that question, since it requires an interpretation of state law. You may wish to consult with the State Attorney General's Office or counsel for an appropriate State agency on the matter, as they are in a better position to discuss Illinois state law.

I appreciate your interest in safety belt usage and hope this information is of assistance to you. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosure March 13, 1985

Mr. Jeffrey Miller Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Miller:

I have a question pertaining to the modification of a vehicle for the use of a handicapped individual. This individual is a parapalegic and confined to a wheelchair. He purchased a van, had a lift hoist installed and the front seat removed. He operates the van from his wheelchair. Is this vehicle required to be equipped with a seat belt under federal law? Illinois recently passed a mandatory seat belt use law. One of the exemptions granted under this new law (95 1/2 - 12 - 603.1 Ch. 8.) states that an individual is not required to wear a seat belt if the motor vehicle is not required to be equipped with seat belts under federal law. In your opinion would this gentleman be required to wear a seat belt?

Thank you in advance for your prompt reply. Sincerely, Alan R. Kroner

ID: 17677-1.pja

Lance Tunick, Esq.
Vehicle Services Consulting, Inc.
P. O. Box 23078
Santa Fe, NM 87502

Dear Mr. Tunick:

This responds to your April 3, 1998, request for reconsideration of our March 31, 1998, interpretation whether Item 4A Glazing, "Rigid Plastic for Use in Side Windows," specified in Standard No. 205, Glazing materials, is permitted in the rear window that is behind a retractable roll bar in a convertible passenger car. Based on the materials you originally sent us, we concluded that rigid plastic glazing was not permitted in that location. However, based on the materials and the issues you raised in your April 3 letter, as well as a videotape and photographs you submitted on July 24, we have concluded that the glazing should be permitted.

As we discussed in our original letter, the relevant question is whether the rear window of the vehicle is part of the convertible top. This is because S5.1.2.11(a)(1) of Standard No. 205 permits item 4A rigid plastic glazing in "[a]ll areas in which Item 4 safety glazing may be used." ANSI Z-26.1a-1980 (incorporated by reference in Standard No. 205) permits item 4 glazing in "[t]he rear windows of convertible passenger car tops."

When we considered whether the window could be considered the rear window of a convertible passenger car top, we based our decision on the materials you submitted. Your original letter attached three color copies of photographs showing the vehicle. The rear window we are discussing retracts automatically behind the rear seats. The one photograph that showed a side view of the window appeared to show the rear window in a partially retracted position on the outside of a broad rollbar. It appeared to be unconnected to the rollbar, with the top edge of the window partially down while the rollbar was fully deployed. Based on this, our March 31 letter concluded that, although your vehicle was a convertible, "the glazing in the vehicle is separate from (not of the same piece as) the convertible top, and therefore is not a rear window of a convertible passenger car top."

The videotape and photographs you sent us in your April 3 letter give a different impression. The newer materials show that the rear window retracts as one unit with the rollbar.⁽¹⁾

When the switch is depressed, the rollbar and window pivot together and drop down behind the rear seats. The window is connected to the rollbar sufficiently that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) considers them to be one unit.

The rollbar is part of the convertible top. The top of the rollbar, when deployed, presents a horizontal exterior surface several inches wide directly over the rear seat passengers. It supports the rear edge of a removeable roof panel (another part of the top) above the front seat occupants. The rear window is physically connected to a part of the top, raises and lowers with the top like other convertibles, and depends on the position of the top for its position on the vehicle. Based on the new materials you have sent us, NHTSA considers the rear window to be part of a convertible passenger car top. Therefore, the rear window can be made of Item 4A rigid plastic glazing.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions about this letter, please contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:205
d.9/16/98

1. What appeared in the original photograph to be the top edge of a partially retracted rear window was actually one image in a timed exposure of the front edge of the rollbar retracting with the window.

ID: nht92-5.22

DATE: July 10, 1992

FROM: David H. Milligan; Thomas H. Milligan; Alisa A. Milligan -- Millco Mfg.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/22/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to David H. Milligan (A39; Std. 213)

TEXT:

We would first like to acknowledge the assistance of your department up to this point and thank them for the advice and direction they have given to us. Jeff Michael has proved invaluable, as well as Dee Fujita and Joanne Murianka who have also given us much help.

As you can see from the enclosed sample, it is the result of many inquiries and needs of the consumer. Our product will take the place of the many home remedies for the existing problem (ie. Blocks of wood, rolled up towels, PVC pipe, etc.) which can prove dangerous if not deadly.

We've taken many precautions already with this project such as flame retardancy, soft yet dense foam, and liability insurance.

What we would like to ask of you is a letter stating that "The Car Seat Support" manufactured by Millco Mfg. for distribution by Rumble Tuff Mfg. does not infringe upon any existing regulations for car seat accessories.

Your immediate attention will be greatly appreciated.

ID: 23491ogm

Mr. Michael Crocker
President
JB Enterprises
P.O. Box 21
Grover, NC 28073





Dear Mr. Crocker:

This responds to your letter concerning a device for which your company has acquired "patent pending" status known as the "Safety Belt Latch." Although your letter does not describe the "Safety Belt Latch," you have indicated in telephone conversations with Otto Matheke of my staff that the "Safety Belt Latch" is intended to relocate the shoulder portion of a lap and shoulder seat belt and position this portion of the belt so it does not contact the neck or collarbone of vehicle occupants. Your letter indicates that the "Safety Belt Latch" will be marketed as an aftermarket product and will therefore not be installed on new vehicles. You request that this agency confirm your understanding that Federal safety standards do not apply to an aftermarket product such as the "Safety Belt Latch."

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The agency does not approve, certify or endorse any vehicles or equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts you provided.

Your belief that no current Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) applies to your product is correct. At this time, NHTSA does not have a standard or regulation for seat belt positioners. However, in a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published in the Federal Register on August 13, 1999 (64 FR 44164) (copy enclosed), we proposed to adopt a consumer information regulation for seat belt positioners. In the NPRM, we proposed to define "seat belt positioner" as "a device, other than a belt-positioning seat, that is manufactured to alter the positioning of Type I and/or Type II belt systems in motor vehicles." Among other things, the NPRM proposed to require the devices to be labeled as not suitable for children of a certain age, e.g., under 6 years old, or a certain height.

It appears that the "Safety Belt Latch" would be considered a seat belt positioner under the proposed definition. If we issue a final rule adopting a consumer information regulation in this area, the rule's definition of "seat belt positioner" could be the same as the definition in the NPRM or a logical outgrowth of the proposed definition. We anticipate announcing a final decision on the NPRM in the near future.

While no FMVSS currently applies to your product, your device is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those and other manufacturer responsibilities. In the event the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. We encourage you to undertake a complete evaluation of your product to determine if its use would degrade the performance of safety belts.

In addition, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to 49 U.S.C. section 30122, which prohibits them from installing the device if the installation "makes inoperative" the vehicle's compliance with any safety standard. It appears unlikely from the nature of your product that it would be placed in vehicles by commercial businesses instead of consumers. If your product were to be installed by a commercial business, the business must ensure that its installation does not compromise the safety protection provided by the vehicle belt system. The prohibition of section 30122 does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-5253.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:208
d.10/25/01

ID: 10628

Mr. Richard Kreutziger
Executive Director
NYSBDA
1111 Lac De Ville Boulevard
Apartment No. 309
Rochester, NY 14618

Dear Mr. Kreutziger:

This responds to your letter of January 3, 1995, telefaxed to Walter Myers of my staff in which you asked whether the bottom edge of a flip-up school bus seat, when in the vertical position, could extend past the rearward edge of a side emergency exit door a maximum of 3/4 inch. The short answer to your question is no.

You enclosed with your letter a copy of Figure 5B of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release, which shows the permitted positions of the seats forward and rearward of a school bus side emergency exit door. You drew in a depiction of the flip-up seat bottom showing the seat bottom extending into the access aisle a maximum of 3/4 inch. You stated that even with such intrusion, 11.75 inches of clear aisle space remains without obstruction of the door release mechanism.

Paragraph S5.4.2.1(a)(2)(i) of FMVSS No. 217 provides that no seat or restraining barrier shall be installed within the area bounded by a vertical transverse plane tangent to the rearward edge of the door opening frame and a vertical transverse plane parallel to that plane at a distance of 30 centimeters forward of that plane. Paragraph S5.4.2.1(a)(2)(ii) then provides:

A seat bottom may be located within the area described in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section if the seat bottom pivots and automatically assumes and retains a vertical position when not in use, so that no portion of the seat bottom is within the area described in paragraph (i) when the seat bottom is vertical. (See Figure 5B). (Emphasis added).

This requirement for a specific minimum aisle space leading to side emergency exit doors on school buses was contained in the final rule issued by this agency on November 2, 1992 (57 FR 49413) to permit bus occupants unobstructed access to the emergency exit door. The language is very clear. No variation from that requirement is permitted.

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

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

ref:217 d:2/13/95