ID: 1982-1.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/25/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Indiana Mills & Manufacturing, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter asking whether paragraph S4.2.2 of Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, is applicable to school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less.

The answer to your question is yes. Safety Standard No. 222 specifies in paragraph S5(b) that all seats, other than the driver's seat, in school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 or less shall meet the requirements of Safety Standard No. 208 as they apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles. The requirements for multipurpose passenger vehicles in Standard No. 208 are found in paragraph S4.2.2 for vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1976. There is no exception in S4.2.2 which allows school buses to comply with S4.2.1.2 of Standard No. 208.

School buses are not specifically mentioned in paragraph S4.2.2 of Standard 208, because that standard includes separate requirements for buses (including school buses) in paragraph S4.4. Under the general bus requirements of Standard 208, only the driver's position must be equipped with a seat belt. These requirements are supplemented by the more specific provision in Standard No. 222 which, as noted earlier, requires small school buses to meet the requirements of Standard 208 as they apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles.

I hope this has clarified your understanding of the requirements of these two standards. Please contact Hugh Oates of my staff if you have any additional questions (202-426-2992).

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

December 1, 1981

Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir:

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 222, "School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection" requires school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs. or less to meet the requirements of FMVSS 208 for multi-purpose passenger vehicles at all seating positions other than the driver's seat.

Section 4.2.2 of FMVSS 208 does not specifically refer to school buses. It is our understanding that they are considered an exception under S4.2.2, and may instead meet the requirements of S4.2.1.2.

Please send us your official written opinion regarding the applicability of S4.2.2 of Standard No. 208 to school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs. or less.

We appreciate your assistance.

Yours very truly, William E. Lawler -- Specifications Manager, INDIANA MILLS & MANUFACTURING, INC.

ID: nht88-1.61

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/01/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

TITLE: ACTION: ACCEPTABILITY OF ADVANCED BRAKE LIGHT DEVICE AS AN AFTERMARKET UNIT

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 04/01/88 EST, FROM MICHAEL M. FINKELSTEIN, TO CARL KAPLAN, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 11/30/81, FROM FRANK BERNDT, TO KENNETH G. MOYER; LETTER DATED 05/02/84, FROM FRANK BERNDT TO LAWRENCE F. HENNEBERGER

TEXT: This is in reply to your memorandum of February 19, 1988, with respect to an advanced brake light device developed by ATAT Technology of Israel. You have described the device as one which activates "the stoplamps of a vehicle upon release of the acceler ator and before actual application of the service brake". You attached a draft of a letter to ATAT for our comment, and you have asked for our opinion of the acceptability of the device for aftermarket installation.

We have made minor changes to the draft. As you know, Standard No. 108 contains no requirements directly applicable to vehicles in use, and the sole prohibition of the Vehicle Safety Act directed to vehicles in use is that no manufacturer, dealer, or ve hicle repair business may render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed in accordance with a safety standard. As the device in question appears to involve the wiring of lighting equipment, it does not appear to be a m odification of a nature easily done by a vehicle owner.

The threshold question for the aftermarket is, does a modification of this nature render inoperative in whole or in part a device or element of design installed in accordance with Standard No. 108. We equate "in accordance with" to mean "necessary for c ompliance with". From your description, we know only one thing about the device: the stoplamps are activated by means other than application of the service brakes.

Both Standard No. 108 and agency interpretations indicate that the device would create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108, and hence be unacceptable as either original or aftermarket equipment. Paragraph S4.5.4 of Standard No. 108 states:

"The stoplamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes. The high-mounted stoplamp on each passenger car shall be activated only upon application of the service brakes."

We assume that all stoplamps on new passenger cars are wired to activate simultaneously. Because activation of the center lamp may only be accomplished by activation of service brakes, and the Israeli device would activate the lamp without brake applica tion, its use would create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108. Although the first sentence of S4.5.4 in contrast with the second does not expressly prohibit application of the lower mounted stoplamps by means other than brake application, the agency has taken the position that all stoplamps on a vehicle must be activated simultaneously (Letter of Oct. 21, 1985 to Kenneth Deane opining that a 35 millisecond delay would be considered "simultaneous"). This means that the vehicle could not be wired so t hat the lower mounted stoplamps would activate upon release of the accelerator but the center lamp would not. For vehicles equipped with the center high-mounted stop lamp, the Israeli device would create a noncompliance with new vehicle requirements, an d, for the aftermarket, result in a wiring and use of lamps noncompliant with new vehicle requirements, hence rendering that system partially ineffective within the meaning of the statute.

With respect to aftermarket installation on vehicles not equipped with center high-mounted lamps, different considerations obtain. In 1981 Kenneth Moyer wrote us about an "alert device which automatically turns on the stop lamps of the vehicle when the accelerator is released". We responded on November 30, 1981, citing paragraph 2.1 of SAE Standard J586d, Stop Lamps, which defines the lamp as one whose operation indicates the "intention of the operator of a vehicle to stop or diminish speed by braking ". Because Mr. Moyer's device would activate the stop lamp under a condition indicating an intent other than the above, we informed him that this device would create an "impairment" and a lack of effectivity as well, and that it would be prohibited. I attach a copy of this letter for your information, as it appears directly on point with the ATAT system, and because some of the agency's comments about the inventor's assumptions appear to remain relevant.

In contrast is the agency's opinion regarding use of the Jacobs brake retarder system, in which the stoplamps are activated when the retarder is in use (see letter of May 2, 1984, to Lawrence Henneberger). The manufacturer argued that use of the stoplam ps when the retarder was activated would indicate "that the vehicle is diminishing its speed by braking. . . ." In Mr. Henneberger's view two 1974 agency interpretations allowing combination of retarder controls with foundation brake controls impliedly r equire activation of the stoplamps when supplementary braking devices are used. The agency agreed with both these arguments.

I hope that this information is useful to you.

Attachments

ID: nht88-1.66

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/07/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

TITLE: ACTION: ACCEPTABILITY OF ADVANCED BRAKE LIGHT DEVICE AS AN AFTERMARKET UNIT

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 04/01/88 EST, TO CARL KALPAN, FROM MICHAEL M. FINKELSTEIN, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 11/30/81 TO KENNETH G MOYER FROM FRANK BERNDT; LETTER DATED 05/02/84 TO LAWRENCE F. HENNEBERGER FROM FRANK BERNDT

TEXT: This is in reply to your memorandum of February 19, 1988, with respect to an advanced brake light device developed by ATAT Technology of Israel. You have described the device as one which activates "the stoplamps of a vehicle upon release of the acceler ator and before actual application of the service brake". You attached a draft of a letter to ATAT for our comment, and you have asked for our opinion of the acceptability of the device for aftermarket installation.

We have made minor changes to the draft. As you know, Standard No. 108 contains no requirements directly applicable to vehicles in use, and the sole prohibition of the Vehicle Safety Act directed to vehicles in use is that no manufacturer, dealer, or v ehicle repair business may render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed in accordance with a safety standard. As the device in question appears to involve the wiring of lighting equipment, it does not appear to be a modification of a nature easily done by a vehicle owner.

The threshold question for the aftermarket is, does a modification of this nature render inoperative in whole or in part a device or element of design installed in accordance with Standard No. 108. We equate "in accordance with" to mean "necessary for c ompliance with". From your description, we know only one thing about the device: the stoplamps are activated upon release of the accelerator, or conversely, the stoplamps are activated by means other than application of the service brakes.

Both Standard No. 108 and agency interpretations indicate that the device would create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108, and hence be unacceptable as either original or aftermarket equipment. Paragraph S4.5.4 of Standard No. 108 states:

"The stoplamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes. The high-mounted stoplamp on each passenger car shall be activated only upon application of the service brakes."

We assume that all stoplamps on new passenger cars are wired to activate simultaneously. Because activation of the center lamp may only be accomplished by activation of the service brakes, and the Israeli device would activate the lamp without brake app lication, its use would create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108. Although the first sentence of S4.5.4 in contrast with the second does not expressly prohibit application of the lower mounted stoplamps by means other than brake application, the age ncy has taken the position that all stoplamps on a vehicle must be activated simultaneously (Letter of Oct. 21, 1985 to Kenneth Deane opining that a 35 millisecond delay would be considered "simultaneous"). This means that the vehicle could not be wired so that the lower mounted stoplamps would activate upon release of the accelerator but the center lamp would not. For vehicles equipped with the center high-mounted stop lamp, the Israeli device would create a noncompliance with new vehicle requirement s, and, for the aftermarket, result in a wiring and use of lamps noncompliant with new vehicle requirements, hence rendering that system partially ineffective within the meaning of the statute.

With respect to aftermarket installation on vehicles not equipped with center high-mounted lamps, different considerations obtain. In 1981 Kenneth Moyer wrote us about an "alert device which automatically turns on the stop lamps of the vehicle when the accelerator is released". We responded on November 30, 1981, citing paragraph 2.1 of SAE Standard J586d, Stop Lamps, which defines the lamp as one whose operation indicates "the intention of the operator of a vehicle to stop or diminish speed by braking ". Because Mr. Moyer's device would activate the stop lamp under a condition indicating an intent other than the above, we informed him that his device would create an "impairment" and a lack of effectivity as well, and that it would be prohibited. I a ttach a copy of this letter for your information, as it appears directly on point with the ATAT system, and because some of the agency's comments about the inventor's assumptions appear to remain relevant.

In contrast is the agency's opinion regarding use of the Jacobs brake retarder system, in which the stoplamps are activated when the retarder is in use (see letter of May 2, 1984, to Lawrence Henneberger). The manufacturer argued that use of the stoplam ps when the retarder was activated would indicate "that the vehicle is diminishing its speed by braking...." In Mr. Henneberger's view two 1974 agency interpretations allowing combination of retarder controls with foundation brake controls impliedly requ ire activation of the stoplamps when supplementary braking devices are used. The agency agreed with both these arguments.

I hope that this information is useful to you.

ATTACHMENTS

ID: 576intp.etl

Ms. Susan A. Longacre
President
Longacre and Associates, Inc.
8401 Corporate Drive, Suite 425
Landover, MD 20785

Dear Ms. Longacre:

This is in response to your letter to this office requesting certain information concerning the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") regulation on the subject of "record retention," designated as 49 CFR Part 576. Your original request was addressed to Ms. Heidi Coleman of this office under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"). As Ms. Enid Rubenstein of my staff previously explained to you by telephone, we are treating your letter as a request for interpretation rather than a FOIA request because your questions ask the agency to interpret the meaning of certain provisions of the regulation, as well to provide you with copies of documents. I am answering your questions in the order that you presented them; and have also enclosed a copy of the full text of 49 CFR Part 576 for your information.

Question 1. Have there ever been any "letters of interpretation" or requests for interpretation sent to NHTSA related to this part?

We were able to locate five letters in which NHTSA's Chief Counsel has interpreted 49 CFR Part 576. I have enclosed copies of these letters with this response. For your information, NHTSA's interpretations are also available in electronic form in a searchable database located on the World Wide Web at: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/interps/. For future reference, the agency's Technical Information Services office ("TIS") also has copies of all legal interpretations of NHTSA regulations. You can obtain copies of these interpretations from TIS in person at 400 Seventh Street, SW, Room 5110, Washington, D.C. 20590 between the hours of 9:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday; and you may also request them in writing from TIS at the above address.

Question 2: Does this requirement pertain to only records that relate to FMVSS compliance?

The answer is no. The regulation requires retention of records that relate to possible defects related to motor vehicle safety as well as records that relate to noncompliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Section 576.2 states that the purpose of the regulation is to preserve records that are needed "for the proper investigation, and adjudication or other disposition, of possible defects related to motor vehicle safety and instances of nonconformity to the motor vehicle safety standards and other regulations." [Emphasis added.]

Section 576.6 uses the inclusive term "malfunctions that relate to motor vehicle safety," rather than "noncompliance" or "defect related to safety" to describe the subject matter of the records that are covered by the regulation. Section 576.8, in turn, sets forth the types of "malfunctions" referred to in 576.6, and makes clear that these include defects that relate to safety, as well as noncompliances with safety standards:

. . . [M]alfunctions that may be related to motor vehicle safety include, with respect to a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment, any failure or malfunction beyond normal deterioration in use, or any failure of performance, or any flaw or unintended deviation from design specifications, that could in any reasonably foreseeable manner be a causative factor in, or aggravate, an accident or an injury to a person.

Question 3: The requirement refers to all records relating to "possible defects." Does that mean that all developmental, material specifications, etc. must also be maintained? If not, what records over and above those relating to FMVSS compliance are required to be maintained?

As stated above, in addition to records relating to noncompliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards, Part 576 requires retention of records relating to possible defects related to motor vehicle safety. See 49 CFR 576.2. However, the regulation does not require a manufacturer to retain the "developmental, material specifications" that you refer to, for either type of malfunction (i.e., safety-related defect or noncompliance).

Neither Part 576 nor the preamble of any of the Federal Register notices surrounding its promulgation mention a requirement to retain documents relating to the design of the vehicle or to material or other specifications. The focus of the regulation is on records that either report or otherwise reflect the presence of a malfunction. Thus, 576.6 includes the following as records that a manufacturer must retain:

communications from vehicle users and memoranda of user complaints; reports and other documents . . . that are related to work performed under, or claims made under, warranties; service reports or similar documents . . . from dealers or manufacturer's field personnel; and any lists, compilations, analyses, or discussions of such malfunctions contained in internal or external correspondence of the manufacturer . . ..

The preamble to NHTSA's first proposal to adopt Part 576 confirms that the focus of the agency's interest in promulgating this regulation was to ensure that manufacturers would preserve records that reflected the existence of malfunctions, and did not extend to records about product development, design, or material specifications:

Typically, the manufacturer is the main recipient of complaints of malfunctions by the vehicle owner. Many reports of malfunctions are processed through channels for the administration of vehicle warranties by manufacturers and their dealers. Manufacturers' field service representatives may also serve as collection points for information of this nature. It is to be expected that manufacturers compile analyses and lists of malfunction reports, with a view toward product improvement, removal of design weaknesses, and of course the remedying of safety-related defects. Since some defects are not revealed as such until months or years after the vehicle's manufacture, a determination by NHTSA of the proper disposition of a possible defect . . . may be seriously hindered if manufacturers do not retain these records.

39 Fed. Reg. 30048 (Aug. 20, 1974).

In practice, manufacturers may retain other types of records that are outside the scope of Part 576. Although NHTSA may, and often does, make use of records such as those relating to design or material specifications when investigating possible safety-related defects or noncompliances, Part 576 does not require a manufacturer to retain them.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions concerning Part 576, you may contact Eileen Leahy, an attorney on my staff, at the above address or at 202-366-5263.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosures (2): Set of 5 Interp Letters; Copy of Part 576
ref:576
d.2/5/98

ID: nht76-3.31

DATE: 06/30/76

FROM: JOHN WOMACK FOR FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA

TO: FAM Enterprises

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 17, 1976, question whether special safety requirements exist for a vehicle that is modified to permit its operation by a handicapped person from a wheelchair that is secured at the driver's position.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(1)(A)) specifies that

@ 1397(a)(1) No person shall --

(A) manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment

unless it is in conformity with all applicable standards. If your modifications are made to a new vehicle prior to its first purchase for purposes other than resale and involve more than the addition of readily attachable components or minor finishing operations, Part 567 of our regulations requires that the vehicle remain in compliance following these alterations and that any change of gross vehicle weight rating or type classification be noted (49 CFR 567.7).

Assuming that the vehicle you modify is a multipurpose passenger vehicle under NHTSA regulations (e.g., a van-type vehicle that does not qualify as a truck) (49 CFR 571.3), it appears from your description of intended modifications that compliance with the following Federal motor vehicle safety standards might be affected:

Standard No. 101, Control Location, Identification, and Display

Standard No. 102, Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect

Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors

Standard No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems

Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components

Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection

Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies

Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages

I have enclosed an information sheet that explains how to obtain copies of our standards and regulations.

There are no additional Federal motor vehicle safety requirements that apply to vehicles operated by a handicapped person sitting at the driver's position in a wheelchair. I have enclosed a Veterans Administration document detailing their specifications for vehicle modifications.

Exemptions from the motor vehicle safety standards are available only to manufacturers of motor vehicles in accordance with @ 123 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1410).

FAM Enterprises

May 17, 1976

Department of Transportation

We are building a vehicle for the handicapped driver that is confined to a wheel chair. This vehicle is so designed that the driver may enter the vehicle by himself and operate all of the functions of this vehicle without leaving his wheelchair. Our intentions are to market this vehicle on a commercial basis.

Safety and complying with the present safety regulation is of great concern to us. Are there certain safety items that may be eliminated or need to be installed that are different from a normal driving vehicle? Safety catches will be installed to hold the chair in place in case of severe impact or an accident. If you feel that some items maybe changed, I would appreciate knowing of these prior to completing our first unit. We hope to have this in operation by the end of August, 1976. If some waivers are required, would you please put us in contact with the proper authorities so that we can take the necessary action to obtain these waivers.

Gary K. Mercer

ID: 22915.rbm

Mr. Jurgen Babirad
Rehabilitation Technology Associates, Inc
P.O. Box 540
Kinderhook, NY 12106





Dear Mr. Babirad:

This responds to your correspondence regarding the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) final rule on vehicle modifications for individuals with disabilities. You ask about the applicability of that rule to a conversion that requires a lowered floor and the installation of a power transfer seat, mechanical hand controls, a steering spinner, an automatic wheelchair lift, and a power door opener. You are concerned that such a conversion may affect the vehicle's compliance with FMVSS No. 105, Hydraulic and electric brake systems, FMVSS No. 206, Door locks and door retention components, FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection, and FMVSS No. 301, Fuel system integrity.

By way of background, NHTSA administers a statute requiring that motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States or imported into the United States be manufactured so as to reduce the likelihood of motor vehicle crashes and of deaths and injuries when crashes do occur. That statute is the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 ("Vehicle Safety Act") (49 U.S.C. '' 30101, et seq.).

One of the agency's most important functions under that Act is to issue and enforce the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs). These standards specify safety performance requirements for motor vehicles and/or items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicles must certify compliance with all applicable safety standards and permanently apply a label to each vehicle stating that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSSs.

The Vehicle Safety Act also prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment that is in compliance with any applicable FMVSS (49 U.S.C. 30122). If NHTSA determines that a business has violated the make inoperative provision, it may assess a civil penalty in the amount of $5,000 per violation (not to exceed $15,000,000 in the aggregate). NHTSA may, through regulation, exempt a person or business from the prohibition if it decides that an exemption is consistent with motor vehicle safety and the Vehicle Safety Act.

On February 27, 2001, NHTSA published a final rule setting forth a limited exemption from the make inoperative prohibition for businesses or individuals who modify vehicles for persons with disabilities (66 Federal Register 12638; Docket No. NHTSA-01-8667). The exception, codified at 49 CFR Part 595, was limited to modifications made after the first retail sale of the vehicle. Accordingly, it does not apply to vehicle manufacturers or alterers. Vehicle modifiers, i.e., businesses that modify a vehicle after first retail sale, may not modify a vehicle in such a way as to negate the vehicle's compliance with any applicable FMVSSs for which there is no exemption, although the modifier is not required to certify compliance with all applicable standards.

While portions of several FMVSSs, including FMVSS No. 208, are included in the Part 595 exemption, FMVSS No. 105, FMVSS No. 206, and FMVSS No. 301 are not. I note however that, by its terms, FMVSS No. 206 does not apply to vehicle doors that are equipped with a wheelchair lift as long as the lift system has either an audible alarm or a visual alarm that can be seen by the driver of the vehicle.

Because there is no exemption related to fuel systems, or to hydraulic or electric brake systems, ⁽¹⁾ vehicle modifiers must take care to ensure that they do not modify the fuel and brake systems in a manner that takes the vehicle out of compliance with FMVSS No. 301 or FMVSS No. 105. The surest way to do so would be to purchase vehicles in which any needed changes were already made by the vehicle manufacturer or alterer, who has certified compliance with FMVSS No. 105 and FMVSS No. 301. Another way would be to modify the vehicle pursuant to a specific protocol based on analysis of compliance testing in accordance with those two standards. For example, we believe that the National Mobility Equipment Dealers Association (NMEDA) has successfully crash-tested a vehicle with a lowered floor and that it provides an explanation of how to make such a modification without compromising compliance with the FMVSS to its Quality Assurance Program (QAP) members. Although it might be possible for a modifier to use engineering analysis alone to determine whether a modification would take a vehicle out of compliance with the standards, this option is risky since there would be no compliance test data to verify the soundness of the modifier's judgment.

As noted above, portions of FMVSS No. 208 are included in the Part 595 exemption from the make inoperative provision. Specifically, those portions of FMVSS No. 208 that require an air bag (S4.1.5(a)(1), S4.1.5.1(a)(3), S4.2.6.2, and S5) or address seat belt adjustment (S7.1), seat belt latch assembly (S7.2), or seat belt comfort and convenience (S7.4) are included in the exemption as long as the affected seating position has a Type 2 or Type 2A seat belt that meets the requirements of 49 CFR 571.209 and 49 CFR 571.210.

NHTSA cannot provide information as to whether the types of potential modifications you have discussed would have the effect of taking the vehicle out of compliance with any of the safety standards addressed in this letter or whether they would fall within the exemption in 49 CFR Part 595. That responsibility lies with the modifier. Accordingly, we urge vehicle modifiers to work closely with the vehicle manufacturers to determine whether a potential modification would take a vehicle out of compliance and to ensure that a modification that is subject to the Part 595 exemption is done consistent with the exemption.

I hope the addresses your concerns. Please contact Rebecca MacPherson of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992 should you have any additional questions about this matter.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:595
d.12/14/01





---

¹ Part 595 does include an exemption from the requirement in FMVSS No. 135 that the brake be pedal-operated.

ID: nht95-1.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 4, 1995

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

TO: Robert L. Hart -- Gerry Baby Products Co.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 10/11/94 letter from Robert L. Hart to Dee Fujita

TEXT: Dear Mr. Hart:

This responds to your letter concerning your company's plans for manufacturing a new type of child restraint system, model #632. The new child restraint system has a removable five-point belt system. You state that, "When the [5-point] restraint is rem oved, it is a booster seat according to the definition in FMVSS 213." You explain that Gerry is developing the final name for the product from among a list of nine possible names, and you want to make sure that none of the names would violate any provisi on of Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems."

As a general matter, Standard No. 213 has no restriction on how a child restraint system can be named. The standard defines several types of child restraint systems, such as "booster seat," "backless child restraint system," and "belt-positioning seat." (Section S4 of Standard No. 213.) These definitions are used to determine which of Standard No. 213's performance and test requirements apply to a particular seat. For example, if a child seat fits the definition of a backless child restraint system, t hen the seat must meet the performance and labeling requirements for backless child restraints, when tested to the test specifications set forth in the standard for backless child restraints.

Thus, the definitions in Standard No. 213 determine the applicability of particular performance and test requirements. Manufacturers are not required to name their restraints using the terminology provided in the standard. However, if a child seat fits the definition for a particular type of child seat under S4 of Standard No. 213, the seat will be evaluated to the criteria for that type of child seat, regardless of the name the manufacturer has given the seat.

While Standard No. 213 does not expressly restrict how you name your product, you should consider the following when making your decision. Three names on your list refer to model #632 as a "convertible" child seat ("convertible car seat," "convertible/b ooster," "convertible toddler seat"). Standard No. 213 does not define what is a "convertible" child seat. However, the term has long been used in the child passenger safety community to refer to a child restraint system that can be used rear-facing fo r infants and forward-facing for older children. We are concerned that calling model #632 a "convertible" seat could possibly confuse consumers about its suitability for infants, which may result in some consumers using the restraint with an infant. Wi th that possibility in mind, we suggest you avoid using the term "convertible" in naming the model #632 car seat.

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

ID: aiam1698

Dear Mr. McGee: This is in response to your letter of November 20, 1974, asking whethe a 'moving van' trailer which utilizes an air over hydraulic brake system is required to comply with Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems*.; 'Air brake system' is defined in S4. of the standard as 'a system tha uses air as a medium for transmitting pressure or force from the driver control to the service brake, but does not include a system that uses compressed air or vacuum only to assist the driver in applying muscular force to hydraulic or mechanical components.'; Since your trailer utilizes air as a medium for transmitting force fro the trailer 'glad hands' to the air/hydraulic actuator, it qualifies as an air brake system and must comply with Standard No. 121.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: nht93-5.27

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 21, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Lillie Rene Erwin -- 365089, TDC Mt View Unit H-1

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/15/93 from Lillie Rene Erwin to Andrew H. Card Jr. (OCC-8693)

TEXT:

This responds to your May 15, 1993, letter to former Secretary Card. Because your letter concerns motor vehicle safety, it has been referred to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for response. You are concerned with vehicles used by the State of Texas to transport prisoners because these vehicles have metal seats and no occupant restraints for the prisoners and asked who you should contact to voice your complaint.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes NHTSA to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to establish a standard which requires seat belts to be installed at all designated seating positions in many, but not all, vehicles. In addition, different belt installation requirements apply depending on the vehicle type, seating position within the vehicle, and the GVWR of the vehicle. Accordingly, I cannot identify the specific belt installation requirements for the vehicle in which you were transported without knowing the date of the vehicle's manufacture, the vehicle's seating capacity, and gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of the vehicle. In addition, your concerns about the State of Texas' use of the vehicle are not addressed by Federal law, which addresses only the manufacture and sale of motor vehicles, not their subsequent use.

Because your questions concern the safety of the State of Texas' vehicles used to transport prisoners, you may wish to contact the Governor's Office, the head of the Texas prison system, or your state representative.

I hope you find this information helpful.

ID: 8693

Ms. Lillie Rene Erwin 365089
TDC Mt View Unit H-1
Rt. 4 Box 800
Gatesville, TX 76528-9399

Dear Ms. Erwin:

This responds to your May 15, 1993, letter to former Secretary Card. Because your letter concerns motor vehicle safety, it has been referred to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for response. You are concerned with vehicles used by the State of Texas to transport prisoners because these vehicles have metal seats and no occupant restraints for the prisoners and asked who you should contact to voice your complaint.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes NHTSA to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to establish a standard which requires seat belts to be installed at all designated seating positions in many, but not all, vehicles. In addition, different belt installation requirements apply depending on the vehicle type, seating position within the vehicle, and the GVWR of the vehicle. Accordingly, I cannot identify the specific belt installation requirements for the vehicle in which you were transported without knowing the date of the vehicle's manufacture, the vehicle's seating capacity, and gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of the vehicle. In addition, your concerns about the State of Texas' use of the vehicle are not addressed by Federal law, which addresses only the manufacture and sale of motor vehicles, not their subsequent use.

Because your questions concern the safety of the State of Texas' vehicles used to transport prisoners, you may wish to contact the Governor's Office, the head of the Texas prison system, or your state representative.

I hope you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:208 d:7/21/93