ID: 1985-01.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/07/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Rod L. Stafford Fryford Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter requesting information on which of the agency's regulations would apply to a new product you are considering. You described the product as a "hammock-like seat which, unrolled and fastened into the rear bed of any pickup truck, forms a comfortable passenger seat which may be easily stowed inside the truck cab." You stated that you plan to sell your product as an item of aftermarket equipment and asked about the application of our regulations to your product.

If your product is sold as an item of aftermarket equipment to be installed by a vehicle owner, it would not be required to comply with Standards Nos. 207, 208, 209, 210, and 302. We were pleased to learn that you have nevertheless voluntarily designed your product to conform to those standards.

As a manufacturer of an item of motor vehicle equipment, you do have a responsibility under section 151 et seq. of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to conduct a notification and remedy campaign if you or the agency determines that your product contains a safety-related defect or does not comply with an applicable standard. A copy of the Act is enclosed.

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

ENC.

2ND SEAT

OCC 0014

Office of the Chief Council National Traffic & Highway Safety Administration

Attn: William Smith

Mr. Smith,

We are a manufacturer of an aftermarket product with the trade name "2nd Seat," and this letter regards the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Standards to our product.

The "2nd Seat" is essentially a hammock-like seat which, when unrolled and fastened into the rear bed of any pickup truck, forms a comfortable passenger seat which may be easily stowed inside the truck cab. The seat is designed to be installed in a rearward-facing attitude, and the rider position is recumbent with an upper body angle which is reclined more than 45 degrees from the vertical axis. The width of the bench thus formed is 45".

We have designed our product to conform to the requirements set forth in Secs. 207 thru 210 of the motor vehicle codes, and the Sec. 302 which refers to Fire Retardant standards. We have performed an engineering study which indicates that our product exceeds the requirements for both the strength of the seat body, and the safety restraint system. However, we understand that the standards are not specifically directed at the aftermarket and that compliance on our part may therefore be subject to a specific ruling from your Department.

If you require more detailed information about the "2nd Seat" or if there is a customary posture which the Administration generally assumes in such cases, please inform us at your earliest convenience.

Rod L. Stafford Fryford Corporation

ID: nht88-3.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/02/88

FROM: R. YAMAUCHI -- NIPPON SEIKO K K

TO: NHTSA OFFICE OF VEHICLE SAFETY COMPLIANCE ENFORCEMENT

TITLE: DUAL MODE RETRACTOR (ELR MODE AND ALR MODE RETRACTOR)

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/19/88 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO R. YAMAUCHI; REDBOOK A33; INTERP 209

TEXT: The above retractor is an ELR which can change to ALR mode in order to fasten child seat.

Seat belt webbing of the dual mode retractor is pulled out to 100% extension position, where ELR mode changes to ALR mode. The ALR mode returns to ELR mode after specified amount of webbing is retracted. In ordinary use, that is webbing is not pulled o ut completely, ELR mode does not change and webbing moves smoothly without locking due to ALR mode.

We believe this dual mode retractor should be treated as ELR because ALR mode is voluntary act. Dual mode retractor, therefore, has to meet ELR performance requirement, and does not have to meet ALR performance requirement.

FMVSS 209 paragraph S5.2(k) specifies as follows. "---- An emergency locking retractor or a nonlocking retractor attached to upper torso restraint shall be subjected to 45,000 additional cycles of webbing withdrawal and retraction between 50 and 100 per cent extension. ----" If the dual mose retractor may be treated as ELR, the above testing will be applied. However, there is a problem. After webbing is fully pulled out, webbing locks at the above 50% extension position due to ALR mode. (In this case, the mode does not change to ELR unless much more amount of webbing is retracted.) To stop the webbing withdrawal just before the fully pulled out position might be able to prevent the change to ALR mode. But it will be in vain because 9 Kg load at that position will extend the webbing to the 100% extended position.

Retractor durability testing of the dual mode retractor can be conducted between 100% extended position and any ELR mode position, where more than specified amount has been retracted. As a test for this retractor, we request cycles of webbing withdrawal and retraction between 0 and 100% extension. We think this test cause no problem because requirement of S5.2(k) is less strict than that of this cycle test.

Please answer the following questions.

Q1 - Is dual mode retractor regarded as ELR? If so, is only the ELR requirement required?

Q2 - We requested 45,000 cycle test after dust should be conducted between 0 and 100% extension length. Is this correct? If not, how do we test the retractor.

We would appreciate if you would answer our questions.

Very truly yours,

ID: nht91-4.17

DATE: June 10, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Rosemary Dunlap -- President, Motor Voters

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-10-91 from Rosemary Dunlap to Jack Rice (OCC 6035)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter concerning bills under consideration by a number of states which would require disclosure concerning safety features in light trucks and vans and bumper strength. You stated that there is considerable debate about whether such bills would be preempted be Federal law, and noted that opponents have represented that a NHTSA spokesperson indicated that the states are preempted in this area. You stated that you have been unable to locate this statement, and asked whether NHTSA has an official opinion regarding Federal preemption and disclosure.

I believe that the statement you refer to was made by NHTSA's Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, Barry Felrice, at the July 1990 NHTSA Public/Industry Meeting. Mr. Felrice was responding to a question from the Center for Auto Safety. I have enclosed a copy of the relevant portion of the transcript for that meeting and the question.

As you can see from the transcript, Mr. Felrice did not say that states are necessarily preempted from establishing information disclosure requirements. In order to provide an opinion as whether a particular bill would be preempted, I would need to review the specific language of the bill.

I hope this information is helpful.

Attachment NHTSA MEMORANDUM

Subject: INFORMATION: Submittal to Docket Date: August 13, 1990 NHTSA/Industry

From: Barry Felrice Associate Administrator for Rulemaking

To: Docket Section THRU: Jack Rice Chief Counsel

Please insert in that Section of the Docket titled, "Rulemaking, Research and Enforcement Program: Public Meetings, the following:

1. Federal Register Notice 55 FR 25920 of June 25, 1990 - Notice of Meeting July 18, 1990, Ann Arbor, MI.

2. Agenda of Meeting

3. Submittal from Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, Inc, subject: "NHTSA/Industry Meeting - Agenda Items, July 18, 1990."

4. Letter dated July 10, 1990, from Center for Auto Safety, subject: "Questions for the July 18, 1990, NHTSA/Industry Meeting."

5. Letter dated July 9, 1990, from Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association, subject: "Questions for NHTSA/Meeting, July 18, 1990.

6. Transcript of Proceedings for the NHTSA Industry Meeting on July 18, 1990.

Attachments

Agenda for NHTSA Industry Meeting Wednesday, July 18, 1990 Ann Arbor, Michigan

I. RULEMAKING

Q. MVMA

1. Attached is a list of unresolved petitions. Please advise as to their status and anticipated actions.

CRASHAVOIDANCE

Q. AIAM

1A. What is the status of NHTSA action on the petition that would require brake hydraulic system malfunction indication for fluid loss and/or pressure loss?

Q. MVMA

2. After review of petitions for reconsideration, does the agency expect to retain the current method of measuring turn signal/headlamp separation by amending the recent FMVSS 108 Final Rule (effective November, 1990)?

3. When does the agency plan to issue a Final Rule on Docket No.

89-24; Notice 1 (optional combinations of lamps)? What changes are expected from the NPRM?

4. When does the agency plan to issue a Final Rule on Docket No.

81-11; Notice 29 (amended humidity test procedure)? What changes are expected from the NPRM?

5. When will the next rulemaking action be taken and what will be the content regarding the adoption of roadway illumination specifications for forward lighting? (Docket 85-15, Notice 7)

Q. AIAM

6. NHTSA issued a final rule to require vehicles with automatic transmissions to be equipped with key-locking systems from September 1, 1992. Has the agency received any request for reconsideration of the requirements and does the agency have an intention to amend the regulation?

Q. MVMA

7. When does the agency plan to issue a SNPRM on brake harmonization? Please describe any expected changes from the previous notice.

Q. AIAM

51. Automobile manufacturers are well aware of the benefits of ABS systems and many are moving forward to adopt ABS for their model lineups. However, in the State of California, a bill, AB 4342 is currently being deliberated, which would make ABS mandatory for all vehicles 6,001 lbs unloaded vehicle weight. While the intent of the bill is a step for the better, we do believe that the bill may conflict with Section 103(d) of the Vehicle Safety Act.

Could NHTSA comment on whether this bill does come into conflict with Federal preemption of state laws as stated in Section 103(d)?

Q. MVMA

52. When is NHTSA planning to complete and make available the "EMERGENCY RESCUE GUIDELINES FOR AIR BAG-EQUIPPED VEHICLES"?

-How and when can copies be obtained?

-How will the "GUIDELINES" be announced and distributed, and to what organizations and mailing lists?

-To whom should individual requests be directed?

Q. CFAS

53. Because light trucks and vans (LTV's) need not meet the same safety standards as passenger cars, several states have proposed laws to require disclosure of standards that a particular LTV does or does not meet, and any effect on the owner's insurance rates. What is NHTSA's view on such state laws?

54. To what extent does NHTSA plan to continue soliciting the opinions of consumer groups in roundtable meetings, such as the recent one on rear seat shoulder belt installation?

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

In the Matter of:

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION INDUSTRY MEETING

PAGES: 1 through 79 PLACE: Ann Arbor, Michigan DATE: July 18, 1990

HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION Official Reporters 1220 L. Street, N.W., Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20805 (202) 623-4233

...regulate. So while we don't specifically require or address anti-lock in our standards, we think that a state law requiring anti-lock can be regarded as addressing the same aspect of performance as Standard 105 and therefore, would be preempted by our standard.

MR. SCHWENTKER: Don Schwentker from AIAM. One might argue that breaking is an aspect of performance quite apart from anti-lock breaking and that a breaking standard, itself, might be preempted like that.

MR. FELRICE: Could be. But we're willing right now to go even further than that. Like I said, breaking stability is regulated by Standard 105. So, without looking at the actual bill, you know, the lawyers think that such a law would be preempted by us.

MR. SCHWENTKER: Does NHTSA have any plans to communicate their feelings on that to California?

MR. FELRICE: No, not at this time. It would be premature.

Fifty two we talked about. Fifty three is another legal question. In this case, the states are requiring disclosure of information to consumers, in this case, light trucks and vans -- a label or something that says these vehicles do not meet all the same requirements that passenger cars do. I think we've seen similar laws here on the bumper performance.

This is a different case. Here we -- there is nothing in federal law that preempts or otherwise prohibits a state from establishing information disclosure requirements as long as the information is accurate and is not required to be affixed to the vehicle. And we think

there is federal preemption there but if a state wants to provide dealerships, provide point of sale information to consumers, or that there be information in an owner's manual, we believe that they have authority to do that.

And the second part of this question asks, what are our views on such state laws? We would hate to give any kind of opinion as to whether a particular state law was good or bad or if we agreed with it based on the specifics of that particular law and I really don't want to give a general statement that we disapprove of the states being in this area.

MR. DANA: Greg Dana, AIAM. About petitions -- did you just say as long as that information labeling requirement, whatever, is not attached to the vehicle?

MR. FELRICE: Yes.

As long as it is not required to be affixed to the vehicle. MR. DANA: All right.

MR. FELRICE: And what the legal cite for that particular aspect is I don't know and you can feel free to ask Jack Rice, our Chief Counsel, who said you can say this, Barry.

Now the last question asks, To what extent we plan to continue soliciting the opinions of consumer groups or others in round table meetings?

For instance, in a recent one, we had an issue about lap/shoulder belts. These will be done periodically. Jerry Curry wants to reach out a lot. We've had meetings with insurers, with manufacturers, consumer groups -- the rear seat lap shoulder belt meeting was an interesting one because we sort of had everybody there together: dealers, manufacturers, consumer groups and insurers. We don't have a particular time table that we'll do these. And probably -- I think everyone wants to do them once every six months, once every year, and I think we will continue to do that and as specific subjects come up, like rear seat lap shoulder belt retrofit kits that merit a specific meeting, we'll just call it then. So they will be continued but there is no specific schedule for doing that.

And I will answer any other questions.

MR. BENNETT: Milford Bennett, General Motors. Barry, a follow up on Item 22, Side Impact. BIOSID AND SID...

ID: nht95-1.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 2, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Lori A. Hawker

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 11/29/94 letter from Lori A. Hawker to NHTSA Chief Council (OCC 10536)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Hawker:

This responds to your letter asking about safety regulations for a product you wish to manufacture. You describe the product as "bunting" that fits inside an infant-only car seat. (An infant-only seat is lightweight and is easily used as an infant carr ier to carry an infant to and from the car.) The bunting is intended as a substitute for a blanket. You state that the bunting has slots through which the harness on the car seat is threaded and the buckle of the harness is attached to the car seat. Yo u believe that, when properly installed, "the bunting in no way interferes with the adjustment or function of the safety straps or buckle mechanism."

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, appro ve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. The following represents our opinion based on the information in your letter.

There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) that directly applies to your product. Our standard for "child restraint systems," FMVSS 213, applies to "any device except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor veh icle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less." (S4 of FMVSS 213) The standard does not apply to child seat accessories that are sold separately from the child seats, such as car seat pillows, pads and bunting.

While no FMVSS applies to the bunting, 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 resp onsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In addition, while it is unlikely that the bunting would be installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, 49 U.S.C. @ 30122 prohibits those businesses from installing the device if the installation "makes inoperative" compliance with any safety standard. Standard 213 specifies flammability resistance requirements for infant seats. Any person listed in @ 30122 who installs the bunting must ensure that the product does not vitiate the seat's compliance with those fla mmability resistance requirements.

The prohibition of @ 30122 does not apply to individual owners who install equipment in their own vehicles. Thus, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles.

I would like to close with the following remarks. It is crucial for the safety of an infant that the straps of its infant seat retain the baby's torso in a crash. Excessive slack in the straps due to the straps binding up on a fabric liner in the seat (such as bunting material), or because of excessive compression of the liner, can cause shoulder straps to move off an infant's shoulders. As a consequence, the infant can be ejected from the seat. We know that you recognize the importance of the strap s in a crash, and that you believe that the bunting will not interfere with their adjustment or function. We underscore the importance of this feature. Bunting material that degrades the ability of an infant seat to restrain its occupant would be an ob vious safety problem.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions, please feel free to contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ID: nht74-2.17

DATE: 08/12/74

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

TO: Walter Case

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 13, 1974, request for approval of your "park-lock" device under the parking brake system requirements of Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, 49 CFR @ 571.121. After a trailer's emergency air supply applies the brakes through the service brake chamber in response to a low service brake air supply, your device locks the brakes in the applied position.

The relevant provision of the standard states:

S5.6.3 Application and holding. The parking brakes shall be applied by an energy source that is not affected by loss of air pressure or brake fluid pressure in the service brake system. Once applied, the parking brakes shall be held in the applied position solely by mechanical means.

The arrangement described would not meet this requirement because the energy source to apply the brakes (the emergency air supply) would be affected by loss of air pressure in the service brake system. For example, any failure in the service brake piston diaphragm would cause a loss of air pressure that would in turn "affect" the energy source that applies the parking brake. The brake chamber housing assembly is an element which is not considered to be part of the service brake system for this requirement.

Standard No. 121 does not specify the design of brake system components. Therefore we neither approve nor disapprove the use of particular components like the "park-lock" device. It may be used in any parking brake system which meets the requirements of the standard.

I would like to point out that the standard becomes effective January 1, 1975, for trailers, and that it does not regulate air brake systems on trailers manufactured before that date.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

June 13, 1974

Larry Schneider -- Chief Counsel National Highway Admn.

Dear Mr. Schneider:

This is being written at the suggestion of Mr. Sid Williams, made to me during a telephone conversation only a few minutes ago.

I am the inventor of a brake locking device for air brake system equipped trailers. This device which weighs barely two pounds has been pronounced by leaders of the Motor Freight industry as the greatest safety device offered the industry in thirty-five years.

Some eight or so weeks ago, B. F. Goodrich Company examined and tested this brake lock and informed us of their intention to use it on their new safety systems, these being readied for market. This followed careful examination of the requirements for complying with NVSS 121 by both B. F. Goodrich and ourselves.

Our device does not alter the regular braking system in any manner. This brake lock works in conunction with the long required and approved Reserve Emergency Valve and trailer emergency air supply system. With the improved (modulated) RE 4 Valve plus our (Park-Lock) brake holding device, safety involving trailers has been increased many fold whether on the highway, parking lot or at the loading dock.

Should the service brake air supply be broken intentionally or by accident the trailer emergency air supply would take over and bring the vehicle to a stop. In such an instance, the Park-Lock would lock the set brakes automatically when the air pressure dropped to 20 lbs.

We submit that our brake locking device meets all requirements of NVSS 121 and of particular reference to (e) paragraph of Div. 12-369-26508 which prompted B. F. Goodrich's bringing to our attention they had been informed there was some question about Park-Lock meeting one requirement. The question concerns a brake chamber diaphragm failure.

Conversations with two large Motor Freight Companies (Transcon - E.T.M.F.) answered our inquiry this way: Concerning failure or malfunction of a diaphragm was, according to their records the rarest of their problems. The only maintenance reports are that of slow leaks reported by the driver. Neither Company could recall a burst diaphragm. In the event of such leak there is a warning device in the cab calling such to the driver's attention.

Particular care was given to explain to us that should the service system fail, the trailers system would be activated by the RE 4 Valve and the vehicles would be brought to a stop, even with a leak in a diaphragm.

Should the trailer system malfunction, the tractor system, protected by the tractor protection valve, would provide the necessary braking power to bring the vehicles to a safe stop. Either way, they emphasize, adequate braking is there to bring vehicles to a stop and all that is really needed for safety is a satisfactory brake lock to fit the tried and proven system now in use.

The Park-Lock brake lock has been proven in regular service for over a year. It is small enough to hold in your hand. The device is simple of construction, has three moving parts making for little wear, or requirement of maintenance.

We will appreciate your careful examination and checking out of our claims. The same, we are confident, can be said for the industry who has hailed our safety device.

Sincerely yours, Walter Case -- PARK-LOCK, INC.

ID: 1985-03.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/17/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Spencer Manthorpe -- Chief Counsel, Pennsylvania Bureau of Motor Vehicles

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Spencer Manthorpe, Esq. Chief Counsel Bureau of Motor Vehicles Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Harrisburg, PA 17122

Dear Mr. Manthorpe:

Thank you for your June 11, 1985 letter concerning this agency's regulations for school buses. I hope the following information is of assistance.

We are aware that Pennsylvania recently amended its definition of a "bus" in Act 1984-146 to adopt the Federal definition of that term. As a result of that change in definition, school vehicles that are capable of carrying 11 persons (including the driver) are now considered "school buses" under Pennsylvania law and must conform to the State' s requirements for school buses. Those vehicles had not been previously considered as school buses, and there are apparently a large number of those vehicles used to carry school children which do not comply with Pennsylvania's requirements.

In letters from your Department to school districts and school bus contractors, it was suggested that seats could be removed or blocked off to restrict a vehicle' s seating capacity to fewer than 10 passengers. In that way, the altered vehicle would no longer be a "school bus" under Pennsylvania State law subject to State school bus regulations. You asked us whether those modifications would be acceptable under Federal law.

Some background on applicable Federal law may be helpful. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to establish safety standards for new motor vehicles. Under our regulations, a new vehicle designed for carrying more than 10 persons (including the driver) is considered to be a "bus," and is considered to be a "school bus" if sold for school-related purposes. 49 C.F.R. 571.3(b). A new "school bus" must meet all Federal safety standards applicable to buses, and also those specifically applicable to school buses," including Standard No. 220, School Bus Rollover Protection, Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength, and Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. 49 C.F.R. 571.220, 571.221, 571.222. If a new vehicle is designed for carrying 10 or fewer persons, it is considered under our regulations to be either a "passenger car" or a "multipurpose passenger vehicle" (MPV), 49 C. F .R. 571.3(b), and must meet safety standards applicable to its vehicle type.

Under Federal law, the consequences of removing a seat from a 10-passenger bus depend on when the seat is removed and on the person who removes it. If a manufacturer or dealer restricts the passenger capacity of a new bus to less than 10 before the vehicle is sold or delivered to the owner, then that manufacturer or dealer is considered an "alterer" under our regulations. The requirements for alterers are set forth in 49 C.F.R 567.7, Requirements For Persons Who Alter Certified Vehicles. The person who reduces the passenger capacity of a bus to nine or fewer before the vehicle's first sale changes the vehicle's classification to that of a MPV. As a result, the person modifying the new vehicle would be required to certify that the vehicle complies with all of the standards applicable to MPV's. Among other things, this would entail the installation of safety belts at all seating positions. (49 C.F.R. 571.208 S4.2, S4.3.)

If the modifications were made after the vehicle's first purchase, our regulations on vehicle alteration would no longer apply. However, there are still statutory restrictions on the types of modifications that may be made. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 51397(a)(2)(A)) provides: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative...any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.. ." In the case of a vehicle sold as a school bus, this provision means that a commercial alterer (in those specified categories) may re move a passenger seat, but must assure that the vehicle continues to comply with all applicable school bus standards after the seat has been removed. Section 109 of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1398) specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for any person who violates section 108(a)(2)(A).

The prohibition against rendering inoperative in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act does not apply to an owner, such as a school or a State, which modifies its own vehicles. The regulations we issued under the Vehicle Safety Act would not restrict, in any manner, how an owner may use its vehicle. Therefore, school bus owners may restrict the seating in their vehicles without regard to any Federal regulation administered by this agency.

Since NHTSA's authority under the Vehicle Safety Act extends primarily to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, and not to motor vehicle use, the States retain the authority to determine the requirements under which motor vehicles may operate. If the State determines that vehicles originally manufactured to carry 10 or more school children may be operated as school vehicles when modified to carry only nine or fewer children, then there are no Federal statutory or regulatory impediments to owner modifications of this type. However, it remains our position that a school bus meeting the Federal school bus safety standards is the safest means of transportation for school children. While school buses have always been among the safest methods of transportation, the safety record of school buses has further improved in the years since buses began to be manufactured in accordance with the school bus safety standards. We therefore urge the States to carefully consider the benefits of assuring continued compliance with those standards for larger vehicles (i.e., those originally manufactured to carry more than 10 persons).

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact this office if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Mr. Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Miller:

I am writing to you requesting a legal opinion concerning the modification of conventional vans with passenger seating capacities greater than 10 used to transport school children in the Commonwealth.

With the enactment of Act 1984-146, which changed the definition of "bus" under Pennsylvania law to conform with the federal regulatory definition of "bus", the department sent letters to contractors and school districts suggesting to either remove or block off enough seats so as to restrict seating capacity to 10 persons or less.

The department believes that such modifications are acceptable; however, in the event that we are wrong, please cite the the Federal law or regulation which would prohibit these modifications.

Thank you for your attention to this letter. I would appreciate the requested information at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely,

Spencer Manthrope Chief Counsel

ID: 1984-1.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/07/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Rod L. Stafford Fryford Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter requesting information on which of the agency's regulations would apply to a new product you are considering. You described the product as a "hammock-like seat which, unrolled and fastened into the rear bed of any pickup truck, forms a comfortable passenger seat which may be easily stowed inside the truck cab." You stated that you plan to sell your product as an item of aftermarket equipment and asked about the application of our regulations to your product.

If your product is sold as an item of aftermarket equipment to be installed by a vehicle owner, it would not be required to comply with Standards Nos. 207, 208, 209, 210, and 302. We were pleased to learn that you have nevertheless voluntarily designed your product to conform to those standards.

As a manufacturer of an item of motor vehicle equipment, you do have a responsibility under section 151 et seq. of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to conduct a notification and remedy campaign if you or the agency determines that your product contains a safety-related defect or does not comply with an applicable standard. A copy of the Act is enclosed.

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

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ATTACH.

WILLIAM SMITH -- Office of the Chief Council, National Traffic & Highway Safety Administration

Mr. Smith,

We are a manufacturer of an aftermarket product with the trade name "2nd Seat," and this letter regards the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Standards to our product.

The "2nd Seat" is essentially a hammock-like seat which, when unrolled and fastened into the rear bed of any pickup truck, forms a comfortable passenger seat which may be easily stowed inside the truck cab. The seat is designed to be installed in a rearward-facing attitude, and the rider position is recumbent with an upper body angle which is reclined more than 45 degrees from the vertical axis. The width of the bench thus formed is 45".

We have designed our product to conform to the requirements set forth in Sec. 207 thru 210 of the motor vehicle codes, and the Sec. 302 which refers to Fire Retardant standards. We have performed an engineering study which indicates that our product exceeds the requirements for both the strength of the seat body, and the safety restraint system. However, we understand that the standards are not specifically directed at the aftermarket and that compliance on our part may therefore be subject to a specific ruling from your Department.

If you require more detailed information about the "2nd Seat" or if there is a customary posture which the Administration generally assumes in such cases, please inform us at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely,

Rod L. Stafford -- Fryford Corporation

ID: nht73-2.3

DATE: AUGUST 17, 1973

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFC. -- RICHMOND, VA.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of July 31, 1973, concerning the effect of our Standard 208 on State laws requiring vehicles to be equipped with seat belts.

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392(d), reads:

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this title is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. . . .

Standard 208 (49 CFR 571.208) permits passenger cars to be manufactured under any one of several options for occupant crash protection. One of these options is "complete passive protection", under which the vehicle must undergo a series of rigorous crash tests, in which instrumented dummies without belt restraints show force levels that would not create serious injury to a human occupant in most cases. Manufacturers are not required by the standard to have seat belts at any position that meets the requirements of this option.

The NHTSA considers that Section 103(d), quoted above, clearly renders void any State laws or regulations to the extent that they would require a vehicle to be equipped with seat belts at seating positions that comply with the complete passive protection option. Any State requirements that are not "identical" to these of an applicable standard are preempted by that section, under basic Constitutional principles of the supremacy of Federal law.

I am enclosing some information on the efficacy of air cushion restraints, as you requested. We are pleased to be of assistance.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ATTACH.

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

July 31, 1973

Lawrence R. Schneider, Esquire -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

Dear Mr. Schneider: This is in reference to a recent telephone conversation with Mr. Dick Dyson in respect to the projected program of General Motors Corporation to market one hundred thousand automobiles equipped with "air bags" instead of safety belts.

As you know, a number of states have statutes requiring that all passenger cars or other motor vehicles registered after certain dates shall be equipped with safety belts. Chapter 357, Acts of Assembly of 1962, embodied in @ 46.1-309.1, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, requires all motor vehicles registered in this State designed and licensed primarily for private passenger vehicular transportation on the public highways, and manufactured for the year 1963 or subsequent years, to be equipped with safety lap belts or a combination of lap belts and shoulder straps or harnesses. In 1968 an amendment was added which requires that "Passenger motor vehicles registered in this State and manufactured after January 1, 1968, shall be equipped with lap belts or a combination of lap belts and shoulder straps or harnesses as required to be installed at the time of manufacture by the Federal Department of Transportation."

In view of the last quoted amendment, it seems clear that the safety belt requirements for such vehicles in this State are dependent upon the requirements of the Federal Department of Transportation. Further, I am aware of the premise of over-riding power in the case of conflict between State and Federal law. For the benefit of this and other states in further clarifying this situation, however, it is requested that you render an opinion on the question of validity of State laws requiring that vehicles be equipped with safety belts. In this, your attention is directed to Public Law 89-563, 89th Congress, S. 3005, September 9, 1966, and Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208. Any additional information on the efficacy of "air bags" as opposed to safety belts would be most helpful.

Respectfully yours,

A. R. Woodroof -- Assistant Attorney General

ID: 11598ELRtxt

Mr. Strawn Cathcart
President
Early Development Co.
6135 Park South Dr., Suite 420
Charlotte, NC 28210

Dear Mr. Cathcart:

This responds to your February 5, 1996 letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, AChild Restraint Systems.@ I apologize for the delay in responding.

You explain in your letter that your company manufactures child restraints with emergency locking retractors (ELRs) which automatically adjust the shoulder straps to fit the child occupant. You are concerned about a provision in Standard 213 which you call the Asnug fit test procedure,@ that you believe calls for (quoting from your letter):

1. The dummy to be placed in the child safety seat and the child safety seat=s restraint fastened according to the manufacturer=s instructions. The position and fit of the belts on the dummy=s shoulders is then visually inspected to see that the shoulder straps are correctly positioned without gaps.

2. A probe is placed between the shoulder strap and the dummy=s shoulder. The shoulder strap is then pulled upward with two pounds of pressure, and again the straps are visually inspected to see that they lay properly in place and that no gaps greater than 1/4 inch exist.

You state that A[t]he application of two pounds of pressure is not enough to engage the ELR.@

You indicate that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration=s (NHTSA=s) Office of Safety Assurance (NSA) has informed you that Athe second phase of the test is not applicable with ELR units. . . .@ That is, in your words, AIf the belts fit snugly on the child dummy=s shoulders, ELR seats have been deemed to pass the >snug fit= requirement. The seats are then move [sic] on to be dynamically tested.@ You agree that this is the correct position and request our concurrence on the matter.

We generally concur that the procedure of the second phase, applying two pounds of force using a probe, would not Aapply@ to an ELR system. However, several matters should be clarified.

There is a requirement in Standard 213 that each child restraint belt that is designed to restrain a child shall be adjustable to Asnugly fit@ any child whose height and weight are within the ranges recommended by the manufacturer for the restraint (S5.4.3.1). A visual inspection by NSA checks that this requirement is met. However, the Asnug fit test procedure@ you ask about relates to a test condition set forth in S6.1.2(e) for the sled test. This section specifies that, prior to sled testing, the belts on a child restraint shall be adjusted, while applying a two pound force using a probe, so that there is 7 millimeters (1/4 inch) of slack.

We concur that this specification of test conditions does not apply to ELR systems. At the time the test condition was adopted, all belts on child restraint systems then on the market were manually adjustable. Hence, they could be adjusted to introduce any amount of slack desired. In general, the more slack there is, the more severe the test, which may result in greater dummy excursions and a greater likelihood that a restraint may fail the performance requirements of Standard 213. To ensure that child restraints would be tested under identical conditions, S6.1.2.4 was added to Standard 213 specifying the precise amount of slack that should be present.

In a system with ELRs, the retractors remove the slack from the belts on their own. Thus, there is no need for the Asecond phase@ of the procedure to adjust the amount of slack in the belts. Moreover, since the ELRs will not be activated on application of the two pound force used in the second phase, applying the force would not serve to measure slack in the belts, but would simply spool out the webbing. Accordingly, NHTSA will not use the procedure with systems such as yours.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366- 2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:213 d:4/25/96

The language of S6.1.2(e) was formerly set forth in paragraph S6.1.2.4. The text of Standard 213's test procedure was reorganized in a final rule published July 6, 1995 (60 FR 35126), effective January 3, 1996. While S6.1.2(e) uses metric units, we use English units in this letter because your letter did so.

ID: nht71-2.44

DATE: 05/06/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Toyo Kogyo Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 6, 1971, requesting an interpretation of section S7 of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection.

Your question concerns the requirement of S7.1.2 that the intersection of the upper torso belt with the lap belt shall be at least 6 inches from the occupant's front vertical centerline. As we understand your question, you have asked whether this 6-inch distance must be achieved by using an inboard belt segment of fixed length, or whether a manual adjusting device may be used that will permit lengthening of the inboard belt segment when the seat is moved forward.

It is the intent of section S7.1.2 to require an intersection point that cannot be adjusted so that it is less than 6 inches from a 50th percentile male occupant's centerline. We are considering a possible amendment to the standard to clarify this intent.

Please advise us if further explanation is needed.