ID: 2649o

Mr. Lloyd J. Osborn
Chief, Customs and Quarantine Division
Department of Commerce
Government of Guam
590 South Marine Drive
Suite 601, 6th Floor GITC Building
Tamuning, Guam 96911

Dear Mr. Osborn:

This is in reply to your letter of December 11, 1987, to the Office of Vehicle Safety Standards of this agency in which you request a "list of vehicles which have been determined by NHTSA to be excluded as motor vehicles."

The agency does not maintain a list of this nature. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act defines a "motor vehicle" as a vehicle, with or without motive power, manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways. This category includes vehicles capable of off-road use but which are nevertheless generally licensed for use on the public roads. Over the years, NHTSA has provided interpretations that the following types of vehicles are not "motor vehicles": single seat racing cars, stock cars modified to the point that they are no longer licensable for use on the public roads, all-terrain vehicles, racing motorcycles and off-road motorcycles that are trailered over the public roads, golf carts, in-plant vehicles lacking doors and lighting devices, airport crash and rescue vehicles, and shuttle buses, snowmobiles, mobile homes, farm tractors, farm trailers whose use of the public roads is limited to crossing from one field to another, and trailers like mobile compressors which spend lengthy periods of time at an off road worksite and only infrequently travel by road to a new worksite. In addition, the agency does not consider construction cranes to be "motor vehicles". Finally, vehicles manufactured pursuant to military contracts, while "motor vehicles", are nevertheless exempted from compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

If you have any further questions we shall be happy to answer them, as well as furnish whatever other assistance you may require in formulating your Customs procedures.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:CSA d:2/11/88

ID: 86-5.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/24/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z.Jones; NHTSA

TO: Paul Meeker -- Senior Product Designer, Century Products, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 6/3/85 letter from Jeffrey Miller to Frederick Locker (Std. 213)

TEXT:

Mr Paul Meeker Senior Product Designer Century Products, Inc. 1366 Commerce Drive Stow, OH 44224-1793

This responds to your letter to Mr. Vladislav Radovich of our Rulemaking division, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR S571.213). Specifically, you noted that Collier-Keyworth now sells a child seat with a movable shield that is not spring-loaded. A movable shield that is not spring-loaded will remain in position in front of the child seat occupant, even if the crotch strap attached to the shield is not properly fastened. You stated that your company would like to build a child seat with a movable shield that is not spring-loaded, and stated your opinion that shields need not be spring-loaded to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 213.

Your opinion is correct if read narrowly, because no provision of Standard No. 213 requires or ever has required movable shields on child restraints to be spring-loaded. However, if a child restraint incorporates a movable shield, section S6.1.2.1.2 of Standard No. 213 specifies that the child restraint must be certified as complying with test configuration II. In test configuration II, the child restraints subjected to a 20 mile per hour frontal crash. Section S6.1.2.3.1(c) provides that none of the child restraint must be attached during this test, unless the belts are an integral part of the movable shield. Because of this requirement and the agency's interpretations thereof, child restraints have generally incorporated spring-loaded movable shields. This agency discussed these provisions and their applicability to the Collier-Keyworth non-spring-loaded shields at length in a July 1985, letter to Mr. Frederick Locker. I have enclosed a copy of this letter for your information.

If you have any further questions about this subject after reviewing the letter to Mr. Locker, please contact Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

See 6/3/85 letter from Jeffrey R. Miller to Frederick B. Locker

July 31, 1986

Mr. Val Radovitch DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Thank you for taking time to visit with Barbara Kelleher, Bob Quinlin and me on July 30.

Per our conversation, I am enclosing a copy of the Collier "Classic" Car Seat literature which shows its non-spring-load flip-over shield.

As we discussed, Century would like to build a seat with a similar flip-over shield and is concerned about whether it is necessary to spring-load the shield. Our opinion is that this type of shield meets the standard without spring-loading.

Will you comment?

Best Regards,

Paul Meeker Senior Product Designer

PM/dg enc.

ID: 17490.ztv

Tadashi Suzuki, Manager
Automotive Equipment
Legal & Homologation Sect.
Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.
2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku
Tokyo 153,
Japan

Re: Vehicle Headlamp Aiming Device

Dear Mr. Suzuki:

This is in response to your letter of March 6, 1998, asking for confirmation of the acceptability of Stanley's aiming adjustment mechanism under Standard No. 108.

This mechanism is intended for headlamps that will be used on vehicles manufactured on and after September 1, 1998. On all such vehicles, each headlamp equipped with a vehicle headlamp aiming device (VHAD) must be manufactured with its calibration permanently fixed by its manufacturer (S7.8.5.2(c)).

The Stanley headlighting system consists of two headlamps, each equipped with two single-filament light sources. The headlamp is designed to be visually/optically aimable. Reflectors for both bulbs are integrally molded so that one aiming mechanism is sufficient to aim both the lower and upper beams. The headlamp system will be installed on a vehicle with an automatic leveling system which has a range of vertical movement of +/-2.5 degrees.

The headlamps in question that are intended for use on vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1998, are equipped with two aiming bolts to facilitate manual aiming. Bolt A is used for horizontal aiming. Both Bolts A and B are used for vertical aiming. From the drawings on Attachment 2 to your letter, it is evident that any independent movement of Bolt B also affects horizontal aim because it causes rotation around an axis that is other than horizontal. You have informed us that, with respect to vehicles manufactured on and after September 1, 1998, Stanley intends to provide headlamps that comply with S7.8.5.2(c) either by removing the VHAD from Bolt A or by permanently fixing its calibration (Stanley has not yet made its choice). With either choice, "the range of vertical adjustment by bolt B with less than 0.76 degree horizontal aim deviation is +/- 1 degree." You explain that "the automatic leveling system supplements the manual aiming system and covers the maximum variation of vehicle pitch, which depends on loading and the actual movement during driving and may exceed +/- 1 degree." We want to point out that if only Bolt B is used to adjust the lamp vertically by more than 1 degree, horizontal misaim will exceed 0.76 degree. This will result in a noncompliance, unless, pursuant to S7.8.5.2(b)(3), an advisory label is placed adjacent to the mechanism and instructions to be inserted in the vehicle operator's manual indicating that both Bolts A and B must be used to adjust vertical aim.

Alternatively, Stanley could retain the horizontal VHAD function and permanently fix its calibration. Paragraph S7.8.5.3(b) states that "there shall be no adjustment of horizontal aim unless the headlamp is equipped with a horizontal VHAD." Since the movement of either Bolt A or Bolt B affects the horizontal aim, it is not possible to use the fixed horizontal aim approach of S7.8.5.3(b) while allowing independent movements of Bolts A and B for vertical aim. Therefore, use of this alternative would require the addition of a second VHAD. In Stanley's design, finding the factory setting for horizontal aim depends on the relationship between the settings of two adjustment bolts rather than, as in the usual design, the absolute position of a single independent adjustment bolt. It would be necessary to equip both bolts with horizontal VHAD indicators with a fixed calibration so that the factory horizontal aim could be restored during the process of vertical aim adjustment. For example, having the VHAD indicators of each bolt read the same number could indicate the proper relationship for factory horizontal aim. We believe that this interpretation is consistent with the interpretation provided you on this subject by Transport Canada.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.6/30/98

ID: nht93-1.42

DATE: 02/19/93

FROM: JOHN WOMACK -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: KENNETH A. GALLO -- HOWREY & SIMON

TITLE: MICHO INDUSTRIES AND SAFETY RESEARCH MANUFACTURING INC. EXEMPTION PETITION

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-18-92 FROM KENNETH A. GALLO TO MARION C. BLAKEY (OCC 8128)

TEXT: This responds to your petition of December 18, 1992, on behalf of your clients, Micho Industries and Safety Research Manufacturing, Inc. The petitioners are manufacturers of an item of motor vehicle equipment called the "R-Bar Restraining System." They asked for an exemption for the R-Bar

from compliance with the testing procedures set forth in 49 C.F.R. Sec. 571.222 subsections S5.1.4(c) and S5.1.4.1 & 2 (1991) for purposes of determining whether the R-Bar (when attached to a passenger seat) deflects to within four inches of any part of another passenger seat.

The petition was submitted pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1397 (a) (2) (B). Alternatively, you request consideration pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1410 (a) (1) (B). Preliminarily, let me note that the provisions of section 1397 (a) (2) apply to vehicles originally manufactured to conform to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards but which are subsequently modified before or after their sale to a first purchaser for purposes other than resale. Section 1410 (a) applies to a vehicle at the time of its manufacture.

Section 1397 (a) (2) (A) provides, in pertinent part:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . .

Section 1397 (a) (2) (B) provides that:

The Secretary may by regulation exempt any person from [subparagraph (A)] if he determines that such exemption is consistent with motor vehicle safety and the purposes of this chapter. The Secretary may prescribe regulations defining the term "render inoperative".

Thus, your petition asks, in effect, that manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses be permitted to install the R-Bar in a school bus in use, even if the installation may cause the vehicle to no longer comply the installation may cause the vehicle to no longer comply with the requirements of Standard No. 222. Although section 1397 (a) (2) (B) was added to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the "Act") in 1974, yours appears to be the first formal request for an exemption that the agency has received, and is therefore a case of first impression. Although NHTSA has provided advisory letters over the years interpreting "render inoperative," the NHTSA has not prescribed any "regulation" pertinent to section 1397 (a) (2).

Congress did not write into the statute any limitation on the use of the section 1397 (a) (2) (B) exemption authority apart from specifying that any exemption must be consistent with motor vehicle safety and the purposes of the Act. However, the committee report in the House, where the exemption provision arose, suggested a limited scope of authority. The report stated that "exemptions may be warranted for owners with special medical problems, who require special controls, or for emergency vehicles or police cruisers." While these purposes were not expressly incorporated in the statute as limitations on the exemption authority, the agency believes that it would not be appropriate to issue an exemption based on other grounds unless there were a strong, compelling reason to do so.

NHTSA does not believe that there is a strong, compelling basis for granting your clients' petition under section 1397 (a) (2) (B). Indeed, NHTSA believes that the concept of using "safety bars" as occupant restraining devices in school buses raises significant safety concerns that would need careful evaluation before the agency would take any action to facilitate their use.

One concern is whether the bar could result in excessive loads (e.g., abdominal, leg, or chest) on occupants during a crash, as a result of contact between the bar and the occupants. This is a complicated issue involving many variables, including type of crash (e.g., frontal, rear), positioning of occupants (sitting up straight, leaning forward, slouching, etc.), what happens when a large occupant is seated next to a small occupant (which could affect the position of the bar relative to the small occupant), and what happens if books, brief cases, lunch boxes, etc. are placed beneath the bar or on top of the bar (thereby affecting the position of the bar relative to the occupants and/or movement of the bar during a crash). Another concern is whether the bar could result in excessive loading of occupants' heads during a crash, from head contact with the seat back in front of the occupant, instead of loading that is spread more evenly over the occupant's body.

I note that NHTSA does not have the information that would be necessary to assess your client's product in relation to these safety concerns. The agency has not conducted any testing of safety bars, and the very limited test information submitted with your client's petition does not provide a basis to make such an assessment. It is clear, however, that Standard No. 222 has been effective in ensuring a high level of occupant protection in school buses. NHTSA believes it would be inappropriate to take any action to facilitate the use of a device that potentially could reduce school bus occupant protection.

Please note, as we have advised others, the prohibition in section 1397 (a) (2) (A) does not extend to the owner of the vehicle. If a school bus authority has its own private service facilities, the installation of the R-bar by the service facilities would not violate the prohibition. However, in view of our discussion above, we would not encourage a school bus authority to make that installation.

The petitioners have also asked to be exempted pursuant to section 1410 (a) (1) (B). This section excuses a noncompliance if the exemption would facilitate the development and field evaluation of new motor vehicle safety features which provide a level of safety which is equal to or exceeds the level of safety established in the standard from which exemption is sought. However, a petitioner under section 1410 (a) must be the manufacturer of the new motor vehicle for which an exemption is sought. Thus, NHTSA can not consider your clients' petition under that section. The agency would be able to consider a petition under section 1410 (a) (1) (B) that is submitted by a school bus manufacturer which wished to install the R-Bar in its vehicles. However, any such petition should address the safety concerns discussed earlier in this letter.

We are returning the videotapes and two of the three copies of the petition that accompanied your letter. If you have any further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this office (202-366-5263), who spoke with you previously on this matter.

ID: 8128

Kenneth A. Gallo, Esq.
Howrey & Simon
1730 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, DC 20006-4793

Re: Micho Industries and Safety Research Manufacturing Inc. Exemption Petition

Dear Mr. Gallo:

This responds to your petition of December 18, 1992, on behalf of your clients, Micho Industries and Safety Research Manufacturing, Inc. The petitioners are manufacturers of an item of motor vehicle equipment called the "R-Bar Restraining System." They asked for an exemption for the R-Bar

from compliance with the testing procedures set forth in 49 C.F.R. Sec. 571.222 subsections S5.1.4(c) and S5.1.4.1 & 2 (1991) for purposes of determining whether the R-Bar (when attached to a passenger seat) deflects to within four inches of any part of another passenger seat.

The petition was submitted pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(B). Alternatively, you request consideration pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1410(a)(1)(B). Preliminarily, let me note that the provisions of section 1397(a)(2) apply to vehicles originally manufactured to conform to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards but which are subsequently modified before or after their sale to a first purchaser for purposes other than resale. Section 1410(a) applies to a vehicle at the time of its manufacture.

Section 1397(a)(2)(A) provides, in pertinent part:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . .

Section 1397(a)(2)(B) provides that:

The Secretary may by regulation exempt any person from [subparagraph (A)] if he determines that such exemption is consistent with motor vehicle safety and the purposes of this chapter. The Secretary may prescribe regulations defining the term "render inoperative".

Thus, your petition asks, in effect, that manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses be permitted to install the R-Bar in a school bus in use, even if the installation may cause the vehicle to no longer comply with the requirements of Standard No. 222. Although section 1397(a)(2)(B) was added to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the "Act") in 1974, yours appears to be the first formal request for an exemption that the agency has received, and is therefore a case of first impression. Although NHTSA has provided advisory letters over the years interpreting "render inoperative," the NHTSA has not prescribed any "regulation" pertinent to section 1397(a)(2).

Congress did not write into the statute any limitation on the use of the section 1397(a)(2)(B) exemption authority apart from specifying that any exemption must be consistent with motor vehicle safety and the purposes of the Act. However, the committee report in the House, where the exemption provision arose, suggested a limited scope of authority. The report stated that "exemptions may be warranted for owners with special medical problems, who require special controls, or for emergency vehicles or police cruisers." While these purposes were not expressly incorporated in the statute as limitations on the exemption authority, the agency believes that it would not be appropriate to issue an exemption based on other grounds unless there were a strong, compelling reason to do so.

NHTSA does not believe that there is a strong, compelling basis for granting your clients' petition under section 1397(a)(2)(B). Indeed, NHTSA believes that the concept of using "safety bars" as occupant restraining devices in school buses raises significant safety concerns that would need careful evaluation before the agency would take any action to facilitate their use.

One concern is whether the bar could result in excessive loads (e.g., abdominal, leg, or chest) on occupants during a crash, as a result of contact between the bar and the occupants. This is a complicated issue involving many variables, including type of crash (e.g., frontal, rear), positioning of occupants (sitting up straight, leaning forward, slouching, etc.), what happens when a large occupant is seated next to a small occupant (which could affect the position of the bar relative to the small occupant), and what happens if books, brief cases, lunch boxes, etc. are placed beneath the bar or on top of the bar (thereby affecting the position of the bar relative to the occupants and/or movement of the bar during a crash). Another concern is whether the bar could result in excessive loading of occupants' heads during a crash, from head contact with the seat back in front of the occupant, instead of loading that is spread more evenly over the occupant's body.

I note that NHTSA does not have the information that would be necessary to assess your client's product in relation to these safety concerns. The agency has not conducted any testing of safety bars, and the very limited test information submitted with your client's petition does not provide a basis to make such an assessment. It is clear, however, that Standard No. 222 has been effective in ensuring a high level of occupant protection in school buses. NHTSA believes it would be inappropriate to take any action to facilitate the use of a device that potentially could reduce school bus occupant protection.

Please note, as we have advised others, the prohibition in section 1397(a)(2)(A) does not extend to the owner of the vehicle. If a school bus authority has its own private service facilities, the installation of the R-Bar by the service facilities would not violate the prohibition. However, in view of our discussion above, we would not encourage a school bus authority to make that installation.

The petitioners have also asked to be exempted pursuant to section 1410(a)(1)(B). This section excuses a noncompliance if the exemption would facilitate the development and field evaluation of new motor vehicle safety features which provide a level of safety which is equal to or exceeds the level of safety established in the standard from which exemption is sought. However, a petitioner under section 1410(a) must be the manufacturer of the new motor vehicle for which an exemption is sought. Thus, NHTSA can not consider your clients' petition under that section. The agency would be able to consider a petition under section 1410(a)(1)(B) that is submitted by a school bus manufacturer which wished to install the R-Bar in its vehicles. However, any such petition should address the safety concerns discussed earlier in this letter.

We are returning the videotapes and two of the three copies of the petition that accompanied your letter. If you have any further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this office (202-366-5263), who spoke with you previously on this matter.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:VSA#555 d:2/19/92

ID: nht75-4.40

DATE: 06/03/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. C. Schultz; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of May 19, 1975, inquiring as to the effect of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, on a Connecticut law relating to school bus window emergency release.

As you are aware, section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) provides that no State or political subdivision of a State may promulgate or continue in effect standards applicable to an aspect of motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance which is covered by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, unless the standards are identical.

Standard No. 217 includes provisions relating to emergency exit force applications. A differing State specification for emergency release force applications is voided by @ 103(d) since the Federal standard is intended to cover all aspects of emergency window release performance.

As explained in our November 29, 1974, letter to Mr. Donald L. Gibson (copy enclosed) a Federal standard will preempt any State law that relates to the same aspect of motor vehicle performance yet imposes different requirements.

Your responsibility as a manufacturer is to comply with the Federal safety standard. You should note, however, that purchase specifications may be imposed by any person or organization, including a State or municipality, with respect to vehicles purchased for the person or organization's own use. Such specifications are not limited by Federal law, and in the case of governmental bodies are specifically allowed by S 103(d), although of course they cannot alter a manufacturer's duty to conform to Federal standards.

SINCERELY,

May 19, 1975

Richard Dyson Assistant Chief Counsel U. S. Department of Transportation NHTSA

The State of Connecticut recently adopted new school bus specifications which will become effective on school buses manufactured after January 1, 1976. In two areas these specifications are more restrictive than FMVSS 217 Bus Window Retention and Release.

In section 14-275B-16 (d) and 14-275B-17 (a), (see attached copies), the Connecticut specifications call for emergency exit release forces of between 5 and 15 pounds and 5 and 20 pounds respectively. Since these forces are different than those required by FMVSS 217, this imposes an additional constraint on school bus manufacturers for that state. Also, we are concerned that latch forces as low as 5 pounds could result in inadvertent opening of emergency exits.

We are in receipt of a copy of a letter which you sent to Mr. Donald L. Gibson, dated November 27, 1974, with file reference N40-30 (KK). In that letter you state:

"The federal requirements must be regarded as conclusive with regard to parking brake performance and emergency braking capability in order to maintain the uniformity necessary in a federal regulatory scheme. If states were permitted to impose additional requirements in an area regulated by a federal safety standard, manufacturers would be confronted with an impossible task of compliance. This reasoning formed the bais of the recent decision rendered in a case brought by the Motorcycle Industry Council, Inc., against the State of California in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California concerning the preemption of a California State requirement that motorcycle lamps be wired to operate when the engine is running. The court held that the California requirement is preempted by the Federal Motor Vehicle Standard 108 since the NHTSA intended to cover all aspects of performance directly involving motorcycle headlamps."

It appears to us that this current conflict between the new Connecticut regulations and FMVSS 217 is similar to the matter which you addressed in your letter quoted above.

In the light of such conflicting specifications, what is our responsibility as a school bus manufacturer.

W. G. Milby Staff Engineer

CC: JOHN O'CONNELL; DAVE PHELPS

MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR TYPE I SCHOOL BUS CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPMENT the release mechansism should be turned to open the emergency door shall be painted on the outside of the emergency door in black on the national school bus yellow background. The emergency door shall have a horizontal opening of at least 30 inches and a vertical opening of at least 48 inches measured from the floor level. No steps shall lead to the emergency door. The emergency door or exit shall be devised so as to be opened from the inside and the outside.

(b) The passage to the emergency door shall be kept clear of obstructions. For rear doors the horizontal clearance of 30 inches shall be maintained for a distance of at least twelve inches inside the bus. When the emergency door is in the left side, a minimum horizontal clearance of 30 inches and a vertical clearance of 48 inches shall be maintained between it and the center aisle.

(c) The upper and lower portion of the central rear emergency door shall be equipped with approved safety glass, the exposed area of which shall be not less than four hundred (400) square inches in the upper portion and not less than three hundred (300) square inches in the lower portion. The left side emergency door shall be equipped with safety glass in the upper portion and the lower portion shall be of at least the same gauge metal as the body outer panels. The emergency door shall be hinged on the right side if it is in the rear end of the bus and on the front side if it is in the left side and shall open only outward. Control from the driver's seat shall not be permitted.

(d) The emergency door shall be equipped with a slide-bar, cam-operated latch which shall have a minimum stroke of one inch. The latch shall be equipped with a suitable electric plunger-type switch connected with a distinctive audible signal automatically operated and located in the driver's compartment which shall clearly indicate the unlatching of this door and no cutoff switch shall be installed in the circuit. The switch shall be enclosed in a metal case, and wires leading from the switch shall be concealed in the body. The switch shall be so installed that the plunger contacts the farthest edge of the slide bar in such a manner that any movement of the slide bar will immediately close the circuit and activate the signal. The door latch shall be equipped with an interior handle which shall be capable of quick release upon application of a force between 5 and 15 pounds but shall be protected agains accidental release. It shall lift up to release the latch. The outside handle shall be installed in a vertical position when latched so as to minimize hitching and shall be a non-detachable device.

(e) An audio alarm shall indicate to the driver when any door is in the locked position while the ignition switch is in the "on" position.

Sec. 14-275b-17. Emergency Windows. (a) A rear emergency window at least 16 inches in height and as wide as practicable shall be provided in any bus where the emergency door is not in the rear. The rear window shall be designed so as to be opened from either the inside or the outside. It shall be hinged at the top and be equipped with a linkage or mechanism that will automatically hold the opened window against the force of gravity at a hinge opening angle of 60 +/- 5 degrees measured from the closed window position. Such linkage or mechanism shall not prevent the window from opening a full 90 degrees due to gravitational forces should the bus be inverted. A positive latch on the inside shall provide for quick release upon application of a force between 5 and 20 pounds but offer protection against accidental release. The outside handle shall be non-detachable and designed to minimize hitching.

(b) Labeling shall indicate in 1/2 inch letters on the inside how the window operates and in letters at least two inches in height the words "Emergency Exit" above on the inside and directly below on the outside.

(c) A distinctive audible signal automatically operated shall clearly indicate to the driver the unlatching of the rear emergency window or the opening of any push-out emergency windows and no cutoff switch shall be installed in the circuit.

(d) If there is a space between the top of the rear divan seat and the inside lower edge of the rear emergency window, such space shall be covered by a material of sufficient strength to sustain 600 pounds weight.

Sec. 14-275b-18. Exhaust System and Muffler. The exhaust system shall include the exhaust manifold and gaskets, piping leading from the flange of the exhaust manifold to and including the muffler(s). The system shall not extend into the body and shall be attached to the chassis. The tail pipe(s) shall be non-flexible sixteen gauge steel or equivalent and shall extend beyond the rear end of the chassis frame but not beyond the rear limit of the bumper. The complete exhaust system shall be tight and free from leaks and shall be properly insulated from the electrical wiring or any combustible part of the bus. It shall not pass within twelve inches of the fuel tank or its connections except that the exhaust system may come within four inches of the fuel tank or its connections if a suitable heat baffle is installed between the exhaust system and such tank or connections. The size of the pipes in the exhaust system shall not be reduced below that at the engine manifold.

$99(Illegible word)

1-28-75

ID: nht93-1.5

DATE: January 8, 1993

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Eugene Berk -- Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devises and Radiological Health, Office of Compliance and Surveillance

TITLE: None

TEXT:

This follows up on telephone conversations between you and Deirdre Fujita of my staff about a letter you received from the Medical Device Inspection Company (MDI) concerning the "Tumble Forms LifeSeat." While much of the information in the letter is subject to a claim of confidentiality, Ms. Carolann Kotula-Cook of MDI told us that we can provide, for purposes of a letter that will be placed in the public docket, the following description of the LifeSeat. The LifeSeat is described by MDI as "a safety seat designed to protect children who are riding in emergency medical vehicles. The seat is designed to be secured to the ambulance stretcher or cot... (and) may also be secured to the vehicle's captain's chair." You ask whether the LifeSeat is a "child restraint system" regulated by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems." As discussed below, the answer is yes.

Standard No. 213 specifies requirements for child restraint systems used in motor vehicles and aircraft, to reduce the number of children killed or injured in motor vehicle crashes and in aircraft. The term "child restraint system" is defined in S4 of the standard as "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." As described in MDI's letter, the LifeSeat meets the child restraint system definition, since it is designed to restrain or seat a child in a motor vehicle. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, each child restraint system that is sold in or imported into the United States must be certified as complying with Standard No. 213. Since the LifeSeat is a child restraint system, it must be certified as complying with Standard No. 213.

We informed Ms. Kotula-Cook that it appears the LifeSeat would not comply with some of Standard No. 213's requirements. We have sent her a copy of the standard, and an information sheet for manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. The information sheet describes manufacturers' responsibilities under Federal law for manufacturing vehicles and items of equipment, such as the responsibility to ensure these products do not have any safety-related defects. Ms. Kotula-Cook said that MDI will be contacting us directly for more information about Standard No. 213 and these responsibilities.

We are returning the copy of MDI's letter you provided us. If you have any questions, please call Ms. Fujita at (202) 366-299.

ID: nht78-3.18

DATE: 02/16/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Volvo of America

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of December 20, 1977, enclosing a previous letter requesting an interpretation of paragraph S4.3(j) of Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. I am sorry that your earlier letter was misplaced.

Volvo is correct in its interpretation that the requirements for emergency locking retractors in S4.3(j)(2) and (3) were promulgated for reasons of comfort and convenience, although this in turn is directed toward a safety objective. As you know, the more comfortable and convenient belts are, the more likely they will be worn by motorists. Further, the requirements in these paragraphs assure that the driver can make necessary movements in the occupant compartment safely.

Paragraph S4.3(j)(2) specifies that an emergency locking retractor

"shall not lock, if the retractor is sensitive to webbing withdrawal, before the webbing extends 2 inches when the retractor is subjected to an acceleration of 0.3g or less."

Volvo interprets this to require that the retractor not lock before the webbing extends 2 inches when the webbing is subjected to an acceleration of 0.3g. This is incorrect. The requirement specifically states that the retractor is to be accelerated. The agency does not agree that keeping the belt stationary and accelerating the retractor is equivalent to keeping the retractor stationary and accelerating the belt. This is due to the fact that inertial forces react upon the retractor during its acceleration that are not present when the webbing alone is accelerated. Therefore, results from the two methods of testing could differ significantly.

I hope this has been responsive to your inquiry, and if we can be of any further assistance please let us know.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

December 20, 1977

Hugh Oates -- Office of Chief Council, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Oates:

As per our telephone conversation, enclosed is one copy of Volvo's Request for Interpretation FMVSS #209 dated April 4, 1977.

We are looking forward to your response to this request for interpretation.

If additional information is required on this subject, don't hesitate to contact the undersigned.

Sincerely yours, William Shapiro PE -- Regulatory Analysis Engineer

ENC.

April 4, 1977

Frank Berndt -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Request for Interpretation FMVSS #209

Dear Mr. Berndt,

Volvo requests interpretation of certain provisions in Section 4.3(j) of FMVSS #209.

S4.3 (j) Emergency-locking retractor

An emergency-locking retractor of a Type 1 or Type 2 seatbelt assembly, when tested in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph S5.2(j) -

(1) Shall lock before the webbing extends 1 inch when the retractor is subjected to an acceleration of 0.7g;

(2) Shall not lock, if the retractor is sensitive to webbing withdrawal, before the webbing extends 2 inches when the retractor is subjected to an acceleration of 0.3g or less;

(3) Shall not lock, if the retractor is sensitive to vehicle acceleration, when the retractor is rotated in any direction to any angle of 15 degrees or less from its orientation in the vehicle.

It is our interpretation that the requirements in Section 4.3(j)(1) were promulgated for safety reasons, while the requirements in Section 4.3(j)(2) & (3) were promulgated for comfort requirements for webbing acceleration sensitive retractors and vehicle acceleration sensitive retractors respectively.

Because we believe that the requirements in Section 4.3 (j)(2) were promulgated to prevent premature locking of the retractor when the webbing is being withdrawn, we interpret this to require that the retractor shall not lock before the webbing extends 2 inches when the webbing is subjected to an acceleration of 0.3 g or less. Is this interpretation correct? Also, we would like to point out that in our opinion testing the emergency-locking retractor system in the following two manners gives the same results.

1) Keeping the belt stationary and accelerating the retractor and

2) Keeping the retractor stationary and accelerating the belt.

If there are any questions pertaining to this issue, please feel free to contact me at your convenience.

In advance, thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely, William Shapiro, P.E. -- Regulatory Analysis Engineer

ID: 21492volvotension

William Shapiro, P.E.
Director, Regulatory Compliance and Environmental Affairs
Volvo Cars of North America, Inc.
Volvo Drive
Rockleigh, NJ 07647-0913





Dear Mr. Shapiro:

This responds to your letter asking about a certain aspect of the dynamic test procedure of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, as applied to a new add-on rear-facing child restraint system that Volvo has developed. Your question relates to a movable surface, a "tension bracket," on the child restraint system that a consumer installing the child restraint would adjust. The tension bracket would increase the tension of the vehicle belt system that attaches the child restraint to the vehicle seat. You ask whether we would deploy the tension bracket in our compliance test of Standard No. 213. Our answer is no.

Background
You explain that the child restraint system ("CRS") is designed in both an infant-only configuration (for children with a mass of up to 10 kilograms (kg)), and a "toddler" configuration (children in the range of 9 to 18 kg). You state that both configurations use a base, or frame, that attaches to the vehicle seat by way of the vehicle belt system and by components that attach to the lower bars of a child restraint anchorage system (see FMVSS No. 225, 49 CFR 571.225).

Your inquiry relates to attaching the child restraint system by way of the vehicle belt system. Volvo designed a tension bracket for this means of attachment, described by you as: "an inverted "U"-shaped surface, attached near the edge of the CRS base or CRS frame (the edge of the CRS which is closest to the vehicle's seat bight)." When the tension bracket is deployed, it "increases tension on the vehicle's belt system, enhancing the coupling of the CRS to the vehicle seat...."

Section 6.1.2(d)(ii) of Standard No. 213 specifies that, when a child restraint is tested on the standard seat assembly when attached by a Type I (lap belt), the belt is tightened to a tension of not less than 53.5 Newtons (N) and not more than 67 N. Volvo believes that the dynamic test should be conducted by "first, routing the standard vehicle lap belt through the CRS belt path/guide, second, adjusting the belt tension to be in the range of 53.5-67 N, and then third, pushing the tension bracket ("U"-shaped surface) against the vehicle seat back by pushing the handle at the top of the tension bracket and the padded top crossbar of the CRS frame apart." Deploying the tension bracket in the sequence will increase the belt tension above 67 N.

You believe that the dynamic test procedure (S6.1.2) of Standard No. 213 permits the deployment of the tension bracket and the resultant increase in belt tension (above 67 N) because S6.1.2 specifies that the add-on child restraint system is installed at the center seating position of the seat assembly "in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions provided with the system." You state that your instructions tell the consumer to (a) "tighten the lap belt fully" while pressing the base into the seat cushion, then (b) deploy the tension bracket. You therefore believe that the dynamic test should be conducted with the tension bracket deployed, since deploying it would be in accordance with your instructions.

Discussion
We do not agree that, for purposes of conducting the dynamic tests in Standard No. 213, the tension bracket should be deployed after the lap belt has been adjusted to 53.5 to 67 N.

The dynamic test procedures of Standard No. 213 are carefully controlled to ensure that all child restraints are tested in the same manner, under identical conditions. Section 6.1.2(d)(ii) of Standard No. 213 specifies the amount of tension that must be on the lap belt (not less than 53.5 N to not more than 67 N) to control the means of attaching each child restraint, thereby reducing variability, and to better assess the performance of the restraint. Under the test procedures of the standard, the tension of the lap belt is checked and controlled immediately before the dynamic test. (See S6.1.2(d)(ii) and S6.1.2(e).) Contrary to your suggestion, we do not subsequently adjust the child restraint to make sure that various features of the restraint that may have been added by the manufacturer are deployed.

Further, specifying the amount of tension that is in the lap belt helps ensure that all child restraints can provide a minimum level of safety when attached in a standardized manner. In our view, no child restraint can be tested with more than the specified 67 N of tension, since that would make the test less stringent. We note that the child restraint requires action on the part of the consumer to increase the belt tension. It does not do so automatically. If the tension adjustment in the seat operated automatically, such that it was impossible to install the seat at a tension below 67 N, we would test at the higher tension.

With your child restraint system, the benefits from the increased tension of the vehicle belt will not be realized by consumers who neglect to deploy the tension bracket or who do so incorrectly. The possibility of the tension bracket not being used is not insignificant, since child restraints do not generally use a tension bracket. The attachment of child restraints to vehicle seats is intended to be standardized. Thus, child restraints must meet the minimum performance requirements of Standard No. 213 regardless of whether a tension bracket is deployed, to guard against a degradation of safety in cases where the bracket is misused.

Accordingly, we conclude that child restraints must meet the minimum performance requirements of Standard No. 213 when the lap belt has a tension of not more than 67 N. We realize that your feature can tension a vehicle belt further and that the removal of slack in the belt system is generally beneficial to child restraint performance. However, our conclusion ensures that child restraints provide a minimum level of safety even when features that are supplemental to the standard means of attaching a child restraint are not used as intended.

If you have any further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

ref:213
d.10/17/00

ID: nht95-3.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 30, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Denise Jones -- NiMi Manufacturing, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/24/95 LETTER FROM DENISE JONES TO DEE FUJITA (OCC 10927)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

This responds to your letter to Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff asking about safety regulations, particularly for flammability resistance, for a device you call a "Toddler Traveler pillow." According to promotional literature you sent with your letter, th e Toddler Traveler pillow is used with a child booster seat to provide "padded comfort and support" to a child sleeping in the booster. The pillow provides a surface the child could lean on while sleeping.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, howe ver, 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 followi ng represents our opinion based on the information set forth in your letter and promotional literature.

Currently there are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that directly apply to the Toddler Traveler pillow. Our standard for "child restraint systems," FMVSS 213, applies to "any device except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for us e 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 pillow that is used with a child booster seat. Our standard for flammability resistance, FMVS S 302, applies to new motor vehicles and to new child restraint systems. It does not apply to child restraint accessory items.

While no FMVSS applies to the Toddler Traveler pillow, 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 reca ll and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed a copy of those defect provisions, as well as an information sheet that briefly describes those and other manufacturer responsibilities. In the event you or NHTSA determines that yo ur product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In addition, while it is unlikely that the Toddler Traveler pillow 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 "ma kes inoperative" compliance with any safety standard. No commercial business listed in @ 30122 can install a Toddler Traveler pillow if the product undermines the vehicle's compliance with a safety standard, including Standard 302 for flammability resis tance.

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.

Before closing, we would like to comment on a further issue, one that you and Ms. Fujita discussed on the telephone. The advertising literature you enclosed with your letter described the Toddler Traveler pillow as being suitable for use with children a ges "18 months to 4 years." We believe this description is potentially confusing concerning the use of booster seats by young children. Booster seats are intended to be used as a transition to safety belts by older children who have outgrown convertible seats (ideally, over 40 pounds and 4 years). A booster seat is not designed to restrain young children, and under a requirement we recently adopted, cannot now be recommended for children under 30 pounds. Stating "18 months to 4 years" may be mistaken to imply that, with your pillow, a booster seat could be used to restrain a child as young as 18 months. To avoid any possible misunderstanding, we suggest that the phrase on recommended use of the pillow should refer to older children, such as those "ov er 4 years."

One further note in closing. You said that a year ago, Ms. Fujita told you "there are no codes to govern" your product. Ms. Fujita is concerned that you might believe you were given an oral interpretation of how our requirements apply to your product. Please note that we cannot give oral interpretations. Ms. Fujita provided you a copy of an interpretation we'd issued in the past on a child seat pillow accessory, while indicating that an interpretation of which requirements apply to your product must be from us in writing. (This letter comprises that interpretation.) We regret any confusion on this issue.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any other questions, please feel free to contact Ms. Fujita at (202) 366-2992.