ID: nht88-2.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/27/88

FROM: L.T. MITCHELL -- THOMAS BUILT BUSES

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/03/89 EST; FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO L.T. MITCHELL -- THOMAS BUILT BUSES INC; REDBOOK A33; STANDARD 217; LETTER DATED 02/24/89 FROM DAN TREXLER -- THOMAS BUILT BUSES INC; TO JOAN TILGHMAN -- NHTSA; LETTER DATE D 12/20/84 FROM FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA TO MELVIN SMITH -- ILLINOIS DOT

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones,

This letter is in reference to a letter written by Mr. Frank Berndt to Mr. Melvin Smith of the Illinois Department of Transportation dated December 20, 1984, in which Mr. Berndt gave an interpretation of one of the requirements of FMVSS 217, a copy is at tached for your information. This interpretation concerned the location of the back of a seat with relation to the forward edge of a side emergency door. Mr. Berndt's interpretation stated that there was no tolerance permitted for the location of the s eat back with reference to a transverse plane coincident with the leading edge of the side emergency door. This lack of tolerance is what we wish to address in this letter.

As I am sure you can appreciate, a requirement for an exact location opens the door to impossible manufacturing requirements. The seats themselves, due to the use of bent-tube welded construction, can vary in the slope of the back or the relative positi on of the seat cushion, by as much as one-half of an inch. The weld-generated deformations, though slight, will also cause relative movement of the seat during the installation process of bolting the seats to the floor. Therefore, if an exact relationsh ip of any part of the seat is a requirement by law, this becomes an extremely difficult goal to meet. It will usually result in the necessity for multiple reseatings, or the physical bending of the seat after it is installed (which requires a significan t amount of force because these are seats meeting the requirements of FMVSS 222), or attempts to deform the padding of the seat locally, or some other undesireable side effect.

In light of the above considerations, and our understanding that the principle intent of FMVSS 217 in this regard is to prevent a seat back from extending backward into the door opening, we request that the NHTSA consider the following interpretation as meeting the requirements of FMVSS 217:

1. A seat back may not intrude backward into the door opening through the transverse plane coincident with the leading edge of the door opening.

2. A seat back may be located ahead of this transverse plane by no more than three-quarters of an inch, plus or minus three-quarters of an inch, or within but no more than, one and one-half inches ahead of the transverse plane coincident with the lea ding edge of the door opening. (See Fig. 1)

We would appreciate your early consideration of this interpretation, because of the current unreasonable situation that has developed among our bus users in their attempts to inspect school-buses for their compliance with their interpretations of the FMV SS 217.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

FIG 1: ALLOWABLE SEAT POSITION AT A SCHOOL BUS SIDE EMERGENCY DOOR WHEN THE BUS ALSO HAS A REAR PUSHOUT WINDOW

[DRAWING OMITTED]

ID: nht89-2.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/31/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: RICHARD J. STROHM

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 11/09/87 FROM RICHARD J. STROHM TO EDWARD JETTNER -- NHTSA; FMVSS 207; OCC 1362; LETTER DATED 10/07/87 FROM RICHARD J. STROHM TO CHEVROLET DIVISION; 1987 CHEVROLET CAPRICE, 1G1BL51H0HX163146, 9000 MILES

TEXT: Dear Mr. Strohm:

This responds to your letter, referred to me by Mr. Edward Jettner of this agency, which asked the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to authorize the adjustment of the front seat in your Chevrolet Caprice by your automobile dealer. I regret the delay in responding.

Your letter and enclosure explained that you would like your dealer to move back the front bench seat in your newly-purchased vehicle to give you more leg room. You stated that the front seat in your new vehicle is mounted closer to the front of the vehi cle than the seat in your former car had been, and that you were more comfortable with the latter seat placement. You said that you contacted a customer service representative and that he told you Chevrolet is prohibited by law from moving the seat. Yo u asked how Chevrolet can obtain authorization to make the desired adjustments. Federal law does not directly prohibit your dealer from adjusting the seat; it does, however, indirectly set limits on the modifications.

By way of background, NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers m ust certify that their new vehicles and equipment conform to all of our safety standards applying to their product. If a new vehicle is modified before its first sale to a consumer, the person making the modification would have to certify that the vehic le, as altered, continues to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Moving back a seat on a new vehicle could affect compliance with Standard No. 207, Seating System, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. A dealer is not prohibited from making changes in the seat position as long as the modified seat and related safety components continue to perform in the manner required by the applicable standards.

Your situation involves the modification of a vehicle after its first sale to a consumer. While our safety standards apply only to new vehicles, there are some statutory restrictions on modifications of

this type. If a vehicle is modified after its first sale, then @ 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act 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 ap plicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . .

Your dealer is not prohibited by @ 108(a)(2)(A) from making the seat adjustment if the adjustment can be made without rendering inoperative your vehile's compliance with any applicable Federal safety standard. It may be that the dealer you contacted has determined that it cannot move the seat rearwards without rendering inoperative a component or element of design now in compliance with the Federal safety standards.

The prohibition of @ 108(a)(2)(A) only applies to commercial businesses, not to individuals. Thus, under Federal law, vehicle owners may themselves make any modifications to their vehicles. They must, however, comply with any applicable State laws limi ting modifications.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact us.

Sincerely,

ID: nht90-1.9

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 8, 1990

FROM: Jerry Ralph Curry -- Administrator, NHTSA; Signature by Jeffrey R. Miller

TO: Robert J. Lagomarsino -- U.S. House of Representatives

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/31/91 from Paul J. Rice to Scott K. Hiler (Std. 222); Also attached to letter from Erika Z. Jones (signed by Stephen P. Wood) to Joseph Mikoll (Std. 222); Also attached to letter dated 4/2/92 from Michael F. Hecker to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7174); Also attached to letter dated 5/14/92 from Paul J. Rice to Michael F. Hecker (A39; Std. 222); Also attached to letter dated 3/10/89 from Erika Z. Jones to Joseph Mikoll (Std. 222)

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter to Secretary Skinner on behalf of your constituent, Mike Dunn. You inquired about a school bus passenger restraining device marketed by Mr. Dunn. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration received an inquiry concernin g a similar device in 1988. A copy of our responses, which detail the requirements applicable to such a device, are enclosed. I will summarize those requirements below.

The device being marketed by your constituent, "a safety bar" for school bus passengers, consists of a padded metal bar which is attached to the seat back of the seat in front of the seat whose occupants are to be protected by the safety bar. The bar is hinged to swing up to allow entry and exit of the occupants. The hinge mechanism also allows the bar to drop slightly from its lowered position upon impact in an attempt to reduce the likelihood of abdominal injury. The device operates much like the p assenger restraint bars found on certain amusement park rides.

As explained by the enclosed letters, federal law does not prohibit the installation of your constituent's product on school buses as long its installation and use would not destroy the ability of the required safety systems to comply with the Federal Mo tor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). If the safety bars are to be installed in any new school bus, the manufacturer of the bus would have to certify that the bus with the safety bars installed complied with the impact zone requirements set forth in S5. 3 of FMVSS No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection (49 CFR Part 571.222).

As the enclosed letters explain, the use of the safety bar would not obviate the need for a school bus with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less to comply with FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection (49 CFR Part 571.208). That standard requires that such v ehicles be equipped with either safety belts or automatic restraints at all passenger seating positions.

In addition, as explained in the enclosed letters and information sheet, the manufacturer of the safety bars would be considered a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et sec.). Such a manufacturer is responsible for conducting a notification and remedy campaign if the company or this agency decides that the product contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety, or that it does not comply with an applicable s afety standard.

I hope you have found this information helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions.

ID: nht76-5.48

DATE: 09/14/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: R. J. Hurlbutt

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of August 13, 1976, asking whether Federal regulations prohibit the installation, by a dealer, of a rear seat in a 1976 Chevrolet Blazer.

Federal regulations do not prohibit such installation by a dealer. If a dealer installs a seat prior to first purchase of the vehicle, the seat must comply with the performance requirements of Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, 49 CFR 571.207.

In this case, you have already taken possession of your vehicle and desire that the dealer now install the seat. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1381, et seq.) provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This does not prohibit a dealer from installing seats in a vehicle that has already been purchased. It simply means that such installation cannot destroy the vehicle's compliance with any motor vehicle safety standard.

Please contact us if we can be of any further assistance.

SINCERELY,

Hugh Oates, Attorney National Highway Traffic Safety Bureau

August 13, 1976

Ref: motor vehicle seat installation regulations

I would like to thank you for your time and interest during our conversation last week.

On May 10, 1976, I took delivery of my factory order 1976 Chevrolet Blazer. I ordered this vehicle with a rear seat, but the seat was left off the order form by the salesman. I took delivery of the vehicle only on the salesman's assurance that the seat could be ordered and installed at the dealership. Several weeks later, when I went back to check on the progress, I was informed by both salesman and parts manager that it was against Federal Safety Regulations for a dealership to install the seat. The dealer "restated" this position to me again on August 9, 1976. The dealer did, however, offer to help locate a used seat through a salvage yard and install it. I think that you would agree that this is a very confusing situation.

I would request your staff to follow whatever course they deem reasonable. I would also ask for a written opinion from you in regard to the Federal Regulations. I would appreciate this orinion as soon as possible.

Thanking you in advance for your expected help and co-operation, I am, Robert J. Hurlbutte

ID: 21411

Mr. Eduardo A. Favela
P.O. Box 19995
Denver, CO 80219





Dear Mr. Favela:

This responds to your March 15, 2000, letter concerning a product that you have developed, called Seatlock. You ask whether the Seatlock is subject to any Federal standards or safety guidelines, and also ask if we have any safety concerns about the product.

You describe the Seatlock in a letter and in diagrams available on a web page. According to your letter and the information on your web page, the Seatlock is a device designed for use with child restraint systems, to reduce any slack left in the lap and shoulder belt used to secure the child seat in the vehicle. The Seatlock consists of a ratchet locking mechanism attached to a metal fork which slides over the webbing of the existing seat belt. Once the child seat is secured in the vehicle and the seat belt is fastened, the ratchet on the Seatlock is turned so that the belt webbing winds around the Seatlock's metal fork. As the ratchet mechanism allow the fork to turn in only one direction, the operation of the Seatlock tightens the seat belt and removes any slack. A release mechanism incorporated into the device can be used to release the tension on the seat belt so that the Seatlock can be removed. You state that the Seatlock does not interfere with the normal operation of the seat belt.

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. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, Congress has established a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the information set forth in your letter.

There currently are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that directly apply to the Seatlock. Our standard for "child restraint systems," Standard 213, applies to "any device except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less." The standard does not apply to accessory items, such as a supplemental belt that is used with a child safety seat. NHTSA also does not consider the Seatlock to be a seat belt assembly subject to Standard 209, as it is a supplemental accessory to the existing seat belt assembly and not intended to be used alone.

While no standard applies to the Seatlock, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you 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 you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

One concern we have relates to the additional stress that the operation of the Seatlock may place on other seat belt components, including the retractor and buckle mechanisms. While these components are required to withstand the high momentary forces that result in a crash, we note that the Seatlock, unless designed to limit the loads that can be applied by the user, has the potential to place a sustained load on the seat belt system that would be greater than that experienced in normal use. This sustained load, if maintained over a long period of time, could negatively impact the performance of the vehicle belt system. In addition, when the Seatlock is in place, it may generate sufficient tension on the seat belt buckle release mechanism to interfere with the normal operation of the buckle. This could make the child seat more difficult to remove in an emergency situation.

For your information, passenger vehicles manufactured since September 1, 1995, are required to have a locking mechanism for the lap belt or lap belt portion of lap and shoulder belts, to enable them to be capable of being used to tightly secure child safety seats without the necessity of the users attaching any device to the seat belt webbing, retractor, or any other part of the vehicle. In addition, under a final rule issued by the agency in March 1999, vehicle manufacturers are required, beginning on September 1, 2000, to equip a percentage of the cars they produce with a uniform child restraint attachment. This uniform child restraint attachment, when used with a compatible child seat, eliminates the need to secure a compatible child restraint with a seat belt. Instead, the child restraint itself will engage the restraint attachment and latch directly to the structure of the vehicle. Under this final rule, all passenger cars and light trucks manufactured after September 1, 2002, will be required to have the uniform attachments.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any other questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Otto Matheke or Ms. Deirdre Fujita at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:208
d.10/17/00

ID: nht71-5.13

DATE: 12/05/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Dana L. Scott; NHTSA

TO: Hess and Eisenhardt Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of November 12, 1971.

As correctly stated in that letter, there is no current requirement that multi-purpose passenger vehicles must comply with standards 105, 109, 110, 201, 202, 203, 204, 212, 214, 215, and 301. Additionally, the information depicted in the chart you provided is correct as of October 11, 1971. However, your dates for proposed future requirements (columns 3 and 5) may change.

The small vans and similar type vehicles being converted for use as emergency medical vehicles are required to conform to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard definition for a "multi-purpose passenger vehicle," since they utilize a truck chassis. Contrary to your opinion concerning the safety hazard of the converted emergency vehicles, we have not received any factual data indicating that these converted emergency medical vehicles constitute a safety hazard to the general public, to the sick or injured occupants, or to the attendants who must operate such vehicles.

As stated in our previous correspondence to you and Senator Robert Taft, Jr., at this point in time the Department is not in the position of proposing an expenditure for the construction of a prototype ambulance. Our limited resources are being devoted to those traffic safety programs which result in the greatest savings in lives and in the reduction of injuries.

We are retaining your correspondence for reference. If, in the future, our priorities include the development of standards relating to the design of an emergency medical vehicle, please be assured that your interests will be fully considered.

Your continued interest in our traffic safety programs is appreciated.

ID: aiam4262

Dear Mr. Cameron-Nott: This is in reply to your letter of December 7, 1986, with respect t kit cars. Your first question concerns a 1965 Jaguar that has been rebodied but carries its original mechanical components, title, and identification number. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act does not require conformance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to passenger cars if the passenger car to be imported into the United States was manufactured before January 1, 1968. However, certain of these standards cover vehicle components, and if the relevant components have been manufactured on or after January 1, 1968, these components would be subject to the applicable Federal safety standard. These components include brake hoses, lighting equipment, tires, retreaded tire, glazing materials (most importantly, the windshield must be marked AS-1), seat belt assemblies, and wheel coves (which may not incorporate winged projections). Although the 1965 Jaguar would have a new body, by retaining its original mechanical components, title, and identification number, it would be considered a 1965 model and not subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to passenger cars. But if any of the equipment listed above has been manufactured after January 1, 1968, those items must comply in order to be imported into this country.; You have asked how the situation would differ were the bodied Jaguar 1972 model, the other facts being identical. We would consider this car a 1972 model, and required to conform to all Federal motor vehicle safety standards that applied on the date of its original manufacture. Conformity could be achieved either before or after its importation into this country.; Your second question concerns 'a kit car consisting of both new an used components i.e. new body/chassis and used mechanicals from various sources including Ford/Triumph and M.G.' You have reported EPA's position that the year of the engine determines what standards are to be met, and you have asked if these are also DOT's requirements. The age of the engine is not the determining factor with us. Generally, the agency considers a kit car consisting of new body and new chassis to be a new motor vehicle, and required to meet all Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new passenger cars as of the date of its assembly, even if some of its mechanical components have been used previously. This means that such components must not prevent the assembled vehicle from meeting those standards.; If you have further questions we would be pleased to answer them. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0320

Dear Mr. Knight: This is in reply to your letter of April 14, 1971, in which you repea Rolls Royce's requests for interpretation of Standards No. 207 and 208.; The request for interpretation of the seat adjustment requirement o Standard No. 207 was initially made in your petition for reconsideration of that standard. Our response to the petitions on Standard No. 207 was published on April 20, 1971. Your petition was denied to the extent that it requested that the requirement be amended to permit 2 inches of travel. However, it is recognized that continuously adjustable seats may have a certain small amount of travel that would not be harmful, and the notice accordingly indicates that they are considered to remain in their adjusted position despite such motion.; We expect that you have by now received our reply to your questions o Standard No. 208. Your inquiry first reached us through your Washington counsel and we accordingly sent our reply by the same route. Please advise us if further clarification is needed.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Acting Associate Administrator, Moto Vehicle Programs;

ID: nht73-3.36

DATE: 03/02/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Semperit of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 25, 1973, inquiring whether size designations "225/70SR14 replaces G70SR14", and "215/70SR15 replaces F70SR15" etc., may be used under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109.

Paragraph S4.3(a) of Standard No. 109 provides for the labeling of "one size designation, except that equivalent inch and metric size designations may be used." The NHTSA has taken the position that this requirement does not prohibit the labeling of replacement sizes when the replaced size is in fact being superseded by the replacement size.

Because your proposed label contains both a metric and an inch size designation, however, it is not clear whether these size designations are intended as "equivalent" or "replacement" sizes. If you intend the former size to supersede the latter, your use of "replaces" between the two size designations is consistent with Standard No. 109. If your intention is to label equivalent size designations, however, the use of "replaces" is inappropriate One way in which equivalency may be appropriately shown is to place the inch size designation in a parenthesis () immediately following the metric size designation.

One last point is that the size designations listed in the Appendix of Standard No. 109 for 70 Series radial ply tires differ from those specified in your letter. Table I-G, which lists this tire type, specifies size designations in which the second letter is an "R". Thus, the size designations which you submit should have read GR70SR14 and FR70SR15. Other size designations of this tire type should be identified accordingly.

ID: 15810.ztv

Kiyoshi Narabu, General Manager
Technical Department
Ichikoh Industries, Ltd.
80 Itado, Isehara
Kanagawa, 259-11
Japan

Dear Mr. Narabu:

This is in reply to your letter of August 19, 1997, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, specifically, S7.8.3 and S7.8.4.

The first sentence of S7.8.3 states that "When a headlamp system is tested in a laboratory, the range of its vertical aim shall not be less than +/-4 degrees from the nominal correct aim position for the intended vehicle application." To the same effect is the first sentence of S7.8.4 which prescribes a horizonal aim tolerance of +/-2.5 degrees. You state that "there are no provisions that prescribe the aim range formed out of [the] vertical and horizontal axis," and submit four Figures of various aim range possibilities and ask whether they conform to Standard No. 108.

Your Figure 1 represents a literal interpretation of S7.8.3 and S7.8.4, depicting vertical and horizontal aim tolerances. However, these are not meant to be mutually exclusive. At any point within the +/- 4degree vertical aim the horizontal aim must be adjustable +/- 2.5 degrees and vice versa, in order to ensure that headlamp aim is correct over the broadest possible range within both the vertical and horizontal directions. This means that Figure 1, as we interpret it, does not represent the correct interpretation of S7.8.3 and S7.8.4 when these paragraphs are read together.

Figure 4 represents our interpretation of Standard No. 108 describing the full rectangle of aiming possibilities created by the plus and minus aspects of the vertical and horizontal aim tolerances. Because Figures 2 and 3 with their "lozenge" and "ellipse" aiming areas respectively do not cover the full range of horizontal aim over the full vertical range of +/- 4 degrees they do not represent a correct interpretation of Standard No. 108.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108

d.9/11/97