ID: 3269yy

Mr. Joe S. Brito
Preferred Custom Concepts, Inc.
4107 Kaufman County Road
P.O. Box 0069
Crandall, TX 75114

Dear Mr. Brito:

This responds to your letter asking about recent changes in this agency's safety standards as they apply to conversion vans. You stated that, "The recent changes that have occurred in the truck and van conversion industry regarding seats and seat belt restraints have also sparked rumors that this new law will also regulate the use of wood in the interior of a converted vehicle." You asked if in fact there is some new NHTSA regulation of "the use of wood in the interior of a converted vehicle." I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; Safety Act) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to issue Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. As of September 1, 1991, Standard No. 208 requires, among other things, "dynamic testing" of manual lap/shoulder safety belts installed at front outboard seating positions of multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less. "Dynamic testing" means that, after fastening the safety belts around a test dummy, a test dummy occupying a seating position must comply with specified injury criteria in a 30 miles per hour barrier crash test. The specified injury criteria are the head injury criteria (HIC), chest acceleration and deflection, and femur loading. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of our November 23, 1987, final rule adopting the dynamic testing requirements for light trucks.

Nothing in the dynamic testing requirements of Standard No. 208 explicitly prohibits the installation of wood in the interior of conversion vans. Indeed, some 1992 luxury passenger cars, which are also subject to crash testing, have wood installed in the vehicle interior. However, wood is a relatively hard surface in a vehicle interior, especially when compared with the padded dashboard, steering wheel, seats, and other components the head may contact in a crash. It would be very difficult for a vehicle to satisfy the injury criteria during dynamic testing if wood were installed in an area contacted by the dummy head during the crash test. Thus, the dynamic testing requirements for conversion vans may effectively limit the interior areas where wood can safely be installed.

In addition, van converters are generally small entities that would not have the resources needed to independently certify that their conversion vans comply with the dynamic testing requirements. The simplest way for these van converters to certify compliance with the dynamic testing requirements is to convert the vans in accordance with the specifications provided by the original manufacturer of the van (e.g., Chrysler, Ford, or General Motors). Because of the difficulties in complying with the dynamic testing requirements if wood were installed in an area contacted by the dummy head during the crash test, the original manufacturers of vans may have advised converters in the van specifications not to add wood in the interior areas of the vans. You may wish to contact van converters or original manufacturers to learn if this is the case.

Another safety standard that might limit the interior areas where wood can be installed is Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact. Standard No. 201 specifies performance requirements for certain areas of the vehicle interior compartment, including portions of the instrument panel. Again, while Standard No. 201 does not explicitly prohibit the use of wood, it may be difficult to comply with the requirements of this standard if wood is added to areas subject to Standard No. 201's performance requirements. I have enclosed a current copy of Standard No. 201 for your information.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any more questions about this issue, feel free to contact Mary Versailles at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures

/ref:201#208 d:l/3/92

ID: nht92-9.56

DATE: January 7, 1992 EST

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Joe S. Brito -- Preferred Custom Concepts, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/1/91 (est) from Joe S. Brito to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6640)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking about recent changes in this agency's safety standards as they apply to conversion vans. You stated that, "The recent changes that have occurred in the truck and van conversion industry regarding seats and seat belt restraints have also sparked rumors that this new law will also regulate the use of wood in the interior of a converted vehicle." You asked if in fact there is some new NHTSA regulation of "the use of wood in the interior of a converted vehicle." I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 et seq.; Safety Act) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to issue Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. As of September 1, 1991, Standard No. 208 requires, among other things, "dynamic testing" of manual lap/shoulder safety belts installed at front outboard seating positions of multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less. "Dynamic testing" means that, after fastening the safety belts around a test dummy, a test dummy occupying a seating position must comply with specified injury criteria in a 30 miles per hour barrier crash test. The specified injury criteria are the head injury criteria (HIC), chest acceleration and deflection, and femur loading. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of our November 23, 1987, final rule adopting the dynamic testing requirements for light trucks.

Nothing in the dynamic testing requirements of Standard No. 208 explicitly prohibits the installation of wood in the interior of conversion vans. Indeed, some 1992 luxury passenger cars, which are also subject to crash testing, have wood installed in the vehicle interior. However, wood is a relatively hard surface in a vehicle interior, especially when compared with the padded dashboard, steering wheel, seats, and other components the head may contact in a crash. It would be very difficult for a vehicle to satisfy the injury criteria during dynamic testing if wood were installed in an area contacted by the dummy head during the crash test. Thus, the dynamic testing requirements for conversion vans may effectively limit the interior areas where wood can safely be installed.

In addition, van converters are generally small entities that would not have the resources needed to INDEPENDENTLY certify that their conversion vans comply with the dynamic testing requirements. The simplest way for these van converters to certify compliance with the dynamic testing

requirements is to convert the vans in accordance with the specifications provided by the original manufacturer of the van (e.g., Chrysler, Ford, or General Motors). Because of the difficulties in complying with the dynamic testing requirements if wood were installed in an area contacted by the dummy head during the crash test, the original manufacturers of vans may have advised converters in the van specifications not to add wood in the interior areas of the vans. You may wish to contact van converters or original manufacturers to learn if this is the case.

Another safety standard that might limit the interior areas where wood can be installed is Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact. Standard No. 201 specifies performance requirements for certain areas of the vehicle interior compartment, including portions of the instrument panel. Again, while Standard No. 201 does not explicitly prohibit the use of wood, it may be difficult to comply with the requirements of this standard if wood is added to areas subject to Standard No. 201's performance requirements. I have enclosed a current copy of Standard No. 201 for your information.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any more questions about this issue, feel free to contact Mary Versailles at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 2971yy

Gary P. Toth, Esq.
General Motors Corporation Legal Staff
New Center One Building
3031 West Grand Blvd.
P.O. Box 33122
Detroit, MI 48232

Dear Mr. Toth:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of how the requirements of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR 571.209) would affect some dual-spring retractor designs GM is considering. Your letter said that these dual-spring retractors are designed so that a spring with a lower retraction force is or can be engaged when the safety belt is being worn by an occupant. When the safety belt is removed, a spring with a higher retraction force is engaged to effectively stow the belt webbing. Your letter also said that the retractor for the shoulder belt portion of the lap/shoulder belts on which these designs would be used is an emergency locking retractor (ELR).

The minimum and maximum retractor force requirements for ELRs are set forth in S4.3(j)(5) and (6) of Standard No. 209. Those sections specify minimum and maximum retractor force requirements when the retractors "are tested in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph S5.2(j)." S5.2(j) specifies that, for the purposes of measuring the retractor forces, the webbing shall be fully extended from the retractor and then retracting the webbing to 75 percent extension plus or minus 2 inches.

Your letter stated that your dual-spring retractor designs will comply with the minimum retractor force requirements when tested under the conditions specified in S5.2(j). This is because the higher retraction force will always be engaged under those conditions. It appears that, when the higher retraction force is engaged in these dual-spring retractor designs, the retractors will comply with the minimum retractor force requirements. However, when the lower retraction force is engaged, the retractor force is less than the minimum retractor force requirement. Because these dual-spring retractors comply with the retractor force requirements when tested under the conditions specified in S5.2(j) of Standard No. 209, your company is ready to certify these designs as complying with Standard No. 209.

You are, however, concerned with the implications of a February 16, 1984 NHTSA interpretation addressed to Mr. Frank Pepe. In that instance, Mr. Pepe stated that the ELR had two tension modes that were activated by the vehicle door. The subject retractor operated in a high tension mode when the vehicle door was open, and in a lower tension mode when the vehicle door was closed. The agency concluded that, because Standard No. 209 does not distinguish between tension modes, the subject retractors would have to comply with all the requirements of the standard, including the minimum and maximum retraction force requirements, in both tension modes. Your letter asked us to reevaluate the conclusions reached in our February 16, 1984 letter to Mr. Pepe.

We believe that the facts presented in your letter are significantly different than those that were presented in the Pepe letter, so the conclusions reached in the Pepe letter are not the same we would reach for your company's dual-spring retractors. In the case of the Pepe letter, the starting point for our analysis of whether the retractors would comply with the minimum and maximum retractor force requirements was the language of S4.3(j) in Standard No. 209, which directed us to the test conditions set forth in S5.2(j) of Standard No. 209. However, the test conditions in S5.2(j) [complete extension of the webbing, followed by subsequent retraction to 75 percent extension] did not adjust the Pepe retractors to either the high or low tension mode. Some additional action beyond the conditions specified in S5.2(j) had to be taken to select either the high or low tension mode. Since the selection of the high or low tension mode was not specified in S5.2(j) or elsewhere in Standard No. 209, NHTSA concluded that the retractor would have to be certified as complying with the retractor force requirements when adjusted to either the high or low tension mode.

The GM retractors present a significantly different situation. According to your letter, the conditions set forth in S5.2(j) will adjust the GM retractors in a way so that the higher retraction force will always be engaged. Assuming this to be the case, no adjustments beyond the conditions specified in S5.2(j) would be necessary to select a tension mode for the retractors. In these circumstances, compliance with the minimum retractor force requirements would be determined only under the conditions specified in S5.2(j).

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:209 d:4/9/9l

ID: 86-5.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/22/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood for Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Ron Marion

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Ron Marion Specification Engineer Thomas Built Buses, L. P. P.O. Box 2450 High Point, N.C. 27261

Dear Mr. Marion:

This responds to your May 21, 1986 letter requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, as it applies to safety belts on large school buses. You asked first whether it is acceptable to install two safety belts on a 39-inch bench seat. Your second question asked whether such a seat would be designated as a two- or three-passenger seat.

In response to your first question, Standard No. 222 currently does not prohibit you from providing two safety belts on a 39-inch bench seat. This is because NHTSA does not require or set specifications for safety belts installed for passengers on large school buses, but for the requirement that the installation method not interfere with vehicles' compliance with applicable motor vehicle safety standards. However, the agency is currently considering an amendment to Standard No. 222 which would affect the voluntary installation of safety belts on 39-inch bench seats. If we adopt changes to the standard proposed in a notice published on October 10, 1985, safety belts voluntarily installed on large school buses must meet requirements similar to those established for safety belts on small school buses. Under the proposed requirements, manufacturers voluntarily installing safety belts would have to install three safety belts on a 39-inch seat. We are currently evaluating comments received on the proposal, and final action is anticipated in the near future.

In response to your second question, since your current option to install voluntarily two safety belts on a 39-inch bench seat does not affect your responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to manufacture school buses which comply with all applicable requirements of Standard No. 222, the 39-inch bench seat to which you refer must be designated as a 3-passenger seat under S4.1 of the standard. You as a manufacturer must ensure that the seat meets the forward and rearward performance requirements, and other applicable requirements of Standard No. 222, based on calculations of three seating positions and the requisite force applications. While your bench seat might be occupied by fewer persons due to the safety belts, that calculation helps to assure that the seat provides adequate protection when occupied by the maximum number.

We note further that since under S4.1 a 39-inch bench seat is considered to have three designated seating positions, manufacturers must not provide more than three safety belts on a 39-inch bench seat or otherwise imply that the seat is capable of carrying more than three passengers.

If you have further questions, please let us know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

May 21, 1986

Office of Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C 20590

Dear Ms. Jones,

Thomas Built Buses, L.P. would like to request an interpretation of a situation which has surfaced, regarding seat belts installed on larger school buses. (GVVWR over 10,000 pounds)

As required by FMVSS-222, School Bus Seating and Crash Protection, section 4.1, Thomas considers our 39 inch bench seat a three (3) passenger seat.

We have been asked by a school district, to place these 39 inch seats in a larger school bus, and install two seat belts per seat.

My questions are:

1) Is this acceptable? 2) What would be the passenger capacity of this seat?

Typically Thomas lists the passenger capacity on the data plate which is installed in the vehicle, therefore it is necessary that we know how we should view such a situation.

Thank you in advance for your assistance in this matter.

Sincerely,

Thomas Built Buses, L.P.

RON MARION, Specification Engineer

RM/jw

ID: nht80-3.18

DATE: 07/11/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: George D. Lordi

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter asking whether there are any Federal requirements applicable to the manufacture of center arm rests that are to be installed between bucket seats in passenger cars, as aftermarket equipment.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues safety standards and regulations governing the manufacture of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, pursuant to authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.). Currently, Safety Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact (49 CFR 571.201), specifies requirements for arm rests that are installed on new passenger cars. Although this standard does not apply directly to arm rests sold only as aftermarket does not apply directly to arm rests sold only as aftermarket equipment, installation of arm rests on both new and used cars may give rise to certain responsibilities on the part of the person making the installation.

Any person who alters a completed vehicle prior to its first purchase for purposes other than resale, i.e., the first sale of the vehicle to a consumer, must place an additional label or tag on the vehicle specifying that, as altered, the vehicle continues to be in compliance with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards (49 CFR 567.7). A person who installs a center arm rest on a vehicle prior to the vehicle's first purchase would be considered an alterer under this provision, and would have to certify that the passenger car was in compliance with Standard No. 201.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act specifies that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative in whole or part any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This means that none of the persons mentioned could install a center arm rest in a passenger car if the installation would destroy the vehicle's compliance with the Federal safety Standards. For example, if it were necessary to permanently remove the vehicle's seat belts in order to install the arm rest, the installation would be prohibited since seat belts are required by Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. It is up to the person making the installation to determine if any safety standards would be affected, and you should so advise your client.

Finally, in addition to the Federal safety standards, manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment are responsible for any defects in their products which affect motor vehicle safety. Under 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 579.5, each manufacturer of an item of aftermarket equipment is responsible for safety-related defects in that equipment. This means that a manufacturer of aftermarket arm rests would have to recall the equipment and remedy free of charge any defect that is determined to exist (15 U.S.C. 1414). For example, arm rests constructed of highly flammable material could be determined to be defective.

I hope this has been responsive to your inquiry. Please contact Hugh Oates of my staff if you require any further information (202-426-2992).

SINCERELY,

LORDI & IMPERIAL

COUNSELLORS AT LAW

June 18, 1980

Frank A. Berndt, Esq. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic & Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Please be advised that I represent a company which is about to commence production of a center arm rest which will be installed in automobiles with bucket seats which do not offer this type of option.

In reviewing the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, I have been unable to find any standard relating to the manufacture and installation of arm rests. In fact, I am of the opinion that there are not any such standards.

My opinion was confirmed by a telephone call to your office and a conversation with one of the attorneys at your office.

Would you kindly provide me with the position of the National Highway Traffic & Safety Administration in regards to the manufacture and installation of center arm rests in automobiles containing bucket seats and advise whether there are any applicable safety standards.

Your immediate attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated as my clients are a small company who are totally dependent upon a steady cash flow in order to remain competitive.

GEORGE D. LORDI

ID: nht79-3.42

DATE: 12/31/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: American Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter requesting an interpretation of the warning system requirements for seat belts in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208. The buckles of driver lap belts in all AMC vehicles and most Jeep vehicles are equipped with switches that prevent the audible belt use warning system from operating when the driver turns the ignition on after having fastened his or her lap belt. You ask whether the standard allows removal of the switch and associated wiring. The effect of this step, which would result in a savings of about $ 1.50 per vehicle, would be that the warning would operate regardless of whether the driver has fastened his or her lap belt. You also ask that your letter be considered a petition for rulemaking if this removal is not permissible.

Paragraph S7.3 of the standard requires a seat belt warning system that activates a 4 to 8-second warning light when the vehicle's ignition switch is moved to the "on" or "start" position (condition "a"), and a 4 to 8-second audible signal when condition "a" exists and the driver's lap belt is not fastened (condition "b"). Under your proposal, the audible signal would be activated when both conditions exist. However, it would also be activated when condition "a" alone exists.

The functioning of the audible signal when condition "a" only exists is not permissible under the standard. The rulemaking notices which led to adoption of the current requirement stated that the agency's intent was that the audible signal operate if the driver's lap belt is not in use. The agency expressed that same intent in the standard by specifying the light was to function when condition "a" existed and the audible signal when both conditions "a" and "b" existed. To interpret the standard to permit the signal to operate when condition "a" only existed would be to render purposeless the specification of condition "b".

Further, the agency denies your petition to amend FMVSS 208 to permit operation of the audible signal when condition "a" only exists. A greater limitation was placed on the operation of the audible warning signal in consideration of the irritation factor associated with the signal but not with the light. To provide a reminder and incentive for safety belt use and to avoid subjecting the conscientious belt user to having to hear an audible reminder to do something that he or she has already done, the agency specified that the signal would not function if the driver's safety belt were fastened.

In light of studies concerning the value of a properly designed belt use warning system in improving the rate of belt use, the agency is contemplating including a proposal to amend the FMVSS 208 warning requirements when it issues its forthcoming notice of proposed rulemaking on seat belt comfort and convenience. We would welcome your views on the proposal following its announcement.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

November 19, 1979

Joan B. Claybrook -- Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation

Dear Ms. Claybrook:

This office is evaluating the feasibility and legal implications of a proposed product improvement. We are considering removing the driver's lap-belt buckle switch and associated wiring harness from the seat belt use reminder system currently installed on all AMC and most Jeep vehicles. We believe that eliminating this buckle switch would not detract from the effectiveness of the reminder system.

The lap-belt buckle switch functions to deactivate the audible signal when the driver's restraint system is fastened. We are of the opinion that the effect of its removal would be consistent with the law as stipulated in paragraph S7.3 of 49CFR571.208 and section 125 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended.

Additional support for our opinion that the audible signal need not be belt-use sensitive apparently can be found in the preamble to Docket 74-39; Notice 3, the final amendment to FMVSS 208 which adopted the new reminder system requirements. In that notice, the NHTSA noted that its initial proposal had intended that the audible warning should be dependent on belt use, but that after consideration of comments received, the Agency determined that "Because of the limited benefit, the reminder should be provided at as low a cost as feasible." Therefore, the NHTSA "determined that an audible-visual combination will provide the best reminder at a cost commensurate with the benefits achievable in a limited-duration signal."

The removal of the lap-belt buckle switch would be consistent with these stated objectives. The achievable associated cost reduction is estimated to be approximately $ 1.50/vehicle, and because many, if not all, U.S.-marketed cars use designs with a similar buckle switch, an industry-wide potential savings of $ 15 million per year appears reasonable.

The resultant belt use reminder system would operate the same as today except that both the light and buzzer would activate for 4 to 8 seconds each time the ignition is turned on regardless whether the driver's belt is fastened. Such a system would not likely be judged unacceptable by the motoring public because we believe that the majority of belt users "buckle up" during the time that the reminder system is activated by the operation of the ignition switch. Therefore, the termination of the audible-visual signal would be essentially coincident with the occupant's fastening of the restraint system.

We ask for your prompt concurrence that such a reminder system would be consistent with Federal requirements. The timeliness of your response is important as the potential product savings and consumer price benefits could be realized almost immediately. Because this is a component deletion that does not require design or tooling time, we could implement this change soon after we receive a favorable response.

If you determine that our interpretation of the belt-use reminder system requirements is not correct, we ask that this request be considered as a petition for rulemaking to amend FMVSS 208 such that the audible signal may be, but is not required to be, driver belt-use dependent.

Sincerely,

K. W. Schang Director - Vehicle Safety Programs -- AMERICAN MOTORS CORPORATION

ID: 86-3.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/02/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Don Black -- Director, U.S. Engineering Office, Alfa Romeo Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Don Black Director, U.S. Engineering Office Alfa Romeo 250 Sylvan Avenue Englewood Cliffs, NH 07632

Thank you for your letter of March 24, 1986, to former Chief Counsel Jeffrey R. Miller about the requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. You explained that Alfa Romeo intends to install automatic safety belts in its two seat convertible model and asked how the requirements of Standard No. 208 apply to such an automatic crash protection system. In essence, all of your questions concern whether an automatic belt system can be substituted for a Type 1 or Type 2 safety belt system under 1.1.2.1(c)(2) of the standard. The answer is yes, an automatic safety belt can be used to meet the frontal crash protection requirements of S4.1.2.1(a) and can also be substituted for a Type 1 or Type 2 safety belt to meet the requirements of S1.1.2.1(c)(2).

As provided in S4.5.3 of the standard, an automatic safety belt system can be "used to meet the crash protection requirements of any option under S4 and in place of any seat assembly otherwise required by that option." Thus, an automatic safety belt can be substituted for a Type 1 or Type 2 belt system under S4.1.2.1(c)(2). Therefore, an Alfa Romeo convertible equipped with an automatic safety belt would not be subjected to the lateral crash test of S5.2 or the dynamic rollover test of S5.3.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ref. #040

March 24, 1986

Mr. Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation N.H.T.S.A. 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Subject: Request for Clarification: FMVSS 208

Dear Mr. Miller: Alfa Romeo has committed to tooling to fit automatic belts in the 2 seat convertible marketed as "SPIDER". This will allow Alfa Romeo to exceed the first year phase-in requirement of 10 percent.

Our management has some concern that this decision may have placed the Corporation in a position of risk, due to the present ambiguities within FMVSS 208.

Following is our analysis of 208 as presently effective:

- S4.1.2(a) Permits passive systems meeting frontal crash criteria of S5.1.

- S4.1.2(c)(2) Permits active belts combined with a passive system meeting frontal crash criteria of S5.1. With this option, there is no requirement to meet lateral or rollover protection requirements.

Looking at these requirements, it appears that an automatic belt system would have to meet the lateral and rollover requirements of S4.7.2(c)(1). However, further into the text at S4.5.2, it appears that automatic belts may be used to meet the requirement of S4.1.2(c)(2). We would like your confirmation that this "linking" is correctly interpreted. If so, then it would seem that there is not lateral or rollover requirement.

- S4.1.2.3.2. Cites type 1 or 2 belts for convertibles, which again according to S4.5.3 may be substituted by automatic belts; thereby linking with S4.1.2(a) and (c)(2).

It appears that a convertible having automatic belts would not be required to comply with either S5.2 or S5.3. For this we solicit N.H.T.S.A.'s concurrence. Should the rollover requirement of S5.3 be required, we know of no means by which any conventional convertible can meet the criteria of S6.1.

In looking at "intent" we tend to think that N.H.T.S.A. had already recognized the convertible/rollover incongruity when S4.1.2.3.2 was written, which seems to concur with P.L.89-563 Sect. 103(f)(3).

May we have N.H.T.S.A.'s early response?

Sincerely, ALFA ROMEO, INC.

Don Black Director, U.S. Engineering Office

DB/as

ID: 24237.rbm

Robert Brown, President
Sensible Solutions, LLC
7301 Brookside Drive
Frederick, MD 21702

Dear Mr. Brown:

This responds to your letter asking about the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSAs) limited exemption concerning vehicles modified for persons with disabilities (49 CFR Part 595, subpart C) and its policy regarding the installation of air bag on-off switches (49 CFR Part 595, subpart B).

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. We refer to that statute as the Vehicle Safety Act. It is codified at 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq.

One of the agencys functions under the Vehicle Safety Act is to issue and enforce 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 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. NHTSA may assess a civil penalty to enforce this provision. NHTSA may also, 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.

The agency has issued two regulations exempting persons or businesses from the make inoperative prohibition. First, on November 21, 1997, NHTSA published a final rule allowing motor vehicle repair businesses to install retrofit air bag on-off switches in the vehicles of individuals who had written authorization from NHTSA to have such a switch installed. The authorization process requires individuals to submit an authorization request in which they have certified that they fall within one of the prescribed risk categories. Based upon a review of the authorization request, NHTSA can send a letter authorizing the installation of an air bag on-off switch. Based on that NHTSA letter, a motor vehicle repair business can install an air bag on-off switch as long as the switch meets the conditions specified in 49 CFR 595, subpart B.

Second, 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). This exemption is codified in 49 CFR Part 595, subpart C. Only portions of some Federal motor vehicle safety standards are covered by the exemption. Specifically, the exemption only applies to modifications that have the effect of rendering mandatory safety equipment or features inoperative and that cannot otherwise be done in a manner that would not render the mandatory equipment or features inoperative. Additionally, the exemption does not apply to those modifications where the risk to safety is so great that an exemption is not justified. Further, the exemption does not apply to any modification that does not have the effect of making safety equipment or an element of vehicle design inoperative. In such instances no exemption is needed. An example of such a modification would be the installation of a mechanical hand control with little or no cutting of the knee bolster and no modification of the steering wheel other than the attachment of a rim-mounted steering control device. Likewise, the attachment of a pedal extender or seat belt extender should not have the effect of making any required safety equipment or vehicle design element inoperative.

One of the Federal safety standards to which the subpart C exemption applies is FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection. Briefly stated, an air bag can be disconnected or removed if 1) a retrofit air bag on-off switch, alone, cannot accommodate the individual's disability and 2) the modified seating position is provided with Type 2 or Type 2A safety belts that meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 209, Seat belt assemblies, and FMVSS No. 210, Seat belt assembly anchorages.

You have asked whether individuals whose disabilities can be accommodated through the installation of retrofit air bag on-off switches in conjunction with pedal extenders, seatbelt extenders or hand controls are released from the requirement that they first receive NHTSA authorization to have an air bag on-off switch installed. The make inoperative exemption for FMVSS No. 208 can only be used to install an air bag on-off switch or disconnect an air bag if the switch installation or air bag deactivation is not the end goal of the modification affecting the air bag.

For example, when an individual's disability requires the use of a reduced diameter steering wheel, the original wheel must be removed. While the driver-side air bag is removed as part of the modification, its removal is not the intended goal of the modification. Another example is the installation of a six-way power seat base in a vehicle that has an air bag deployment sensor located under the seat. In the course of this modification, the sensor must be moved. If the modifier believes the sensor cannot be moved without making the air bag system inoperative, the portion of the Part 595, subpart C exemption addressing FMVSS No. 208 is available to the modifier, and the air bag can be disconnected.

An example of when the exemption could not be used would be the installation of a left-foot accelerator in which no other vehicle modifications were required. This installation would not, in and of itself, require the removal of the air bag or the installation of an air bag on-off switch. Accordingly, no exemption related to FMVSS No. 208 would be provided under Part 595, subpart C.

We stated in the preamble to the February 2001 final rule that if an air bag on-off switch will partially address an individual's disability but more extensive modifications are also required to accommodate the disability, there is no additional requirement for prior authorization for an on-off switch. This is because the modifier is already relying on the exemption in 49 CFR Part 595, subpart C to make the needed modifications. However, the additional modifications must be those affecting the vehicles compliance with the safety standards specified in Part 595, subpart C.^[1]

Modifications not covered by the limited exemption of 49 CFR Part 595, subpart C, continue to require prior agency authorization for the installation of an air bag on-off switch. Accordingly, with the exception of work performed for an individual with achondroplasia or atlantoaxial instability, if a vehicle modifier limits the modification on a particular vehicle to the installation of pedal extenders, seat belt extenders, or other minor modifications, with no other changes to the vehicle, it cannot rely on the exemption given in Part 595, subpart C to install an air bag on-off switch.

I hope this information is helpful. Should you require any additional information or assistance, please contact Rebecca MacPherson of my staff at (202) 366-2992 or at the address given above.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel
ref:595
d.7/2/02

^[1] Exceptions are for when the individual disability was achondroplasia (drivers only) or atlantoaxial instability (passengers only). No prior authorization was required even when the only modification needed to address the disability was the installation of an air bag on-off switch. The reason these two conditions were exempted from the normal process is because these are the only two conditions that have been identified as always necessitating deactivation of the air bag. This determination was made by a panel of physicians at a national medical conference on evaluating the air bag risk. The report from this conference may be viewed at the NHTSA web site at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov.

ID: GF004373

Kelly A. Freeman, Esq.
Assistant General Counsel
Quantum Value Management, LLC
33 Bloomfield Hills Parkway, Suite 240
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304

Dear Ms. Freeman:

This responds to your June 18, 2004, letter regarding a number of products assembled by subsidaries of your company. You believe that these products would not be classified as "motor vehicles" for the purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). As explained below, based on the information you provided, it is our opinion that two of the products are not motor vehicles for the purposes of our regulations. We are not taking a specific position with respect to the other products, but will identify the relevant factors that should be considered in making such determinations.

Title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to prescribe Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 30102(a)(6) defines "motor vehicle" as:

"[A] vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line."

We have issued a number of interpretations of this language. We have stated that vehicles equipped with tracks, agricultural equipment, and other vehicles incapable of highway travel are not motor vehicles. We have also determined that certain vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g. , airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not motor vehicles, even if they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Finally, we have concluded that items of mobile construction equipment that use the highways only to move between job sites and that typically spend extended periods of time at a single site are not motor vehicles. However, we do consider vehicles that use the public roads on a necessary and recurring basis to be motor vehicles.

You asked about the following products:


• Three Manitex Boom Truck models of various tonnage (models 2601C, 2201 and 3500);
• One Manitex SkyCrane, LLC Remote, Telescoping Aerial Service Platform and Crane (Skyhoist model RTA120X);
• One Manitex SkyCrane, LLC (f/k/a Phoenix) Arial Crane;
• One Manitex SkyCrane, LLC Sponco Arial Ladder;
• One Noble Construction Equipment Rough Terrain Lift Truck;
• One Noble Construction Equipment Pull Scraper (model 417B); and,
• One Noble Construction Equipment Mobile Water Truck.

It is our opinion that two of the products, the Rough Terrain Lift Truck, and the Pull Scraper, are not motor vehicles. According to your letter, the Rough Terrain Lift Truck is designed to lift items such as brick, beams, building materials in uneven and rough surfaces, such as on construction sites where land has not been leveled. The Pull Scraper is used to clear and/or move earth on a large scale at a construction site. You also indicated that these products are transported to the job site and are not used on the public roads, even for relocation to a new work site. These products are not manufactured for use on the highways and are therefore not motor vehicles.

The other products appear to be ordinary heavy-duty trucks equipped with special apparatus. You indicated that these products are manufactured mainly for the construction industry and that although capable of being driven on public roads, such use is incidental and is for the purpose of moving the equipment from one worksite to another. You also stated that these products are typically left at a construction site for an extended period of time.

You further explained:

The boom trucks, telescoping aerial cranes and aerial ladders have outriggers that slide out horizontally and extend laterally from each side of the bed to stabilize the truck while the boom, crane or ladder (as the case may be) are in operation. They are manufactured for heavy-duty lifting and operation. The aerial platform and crane is a hydraulic crane with the capability of holding three people on its platform combined with heavy duty load-lifting. The boom trucks and aerial cranes are often used to lift large loads of brick, building trusses, steel beams, large signage, billboards and construction equipment, among other uses. . . . The water truck is used to decrease dust and assist in settling the earth, often following in the tracks of the pull scraper.

You also enclosed copies of a number of brochures.

We note that, as discussed in two enclosed letters, a March 21, 2001 letter to LeAnn Johnson-Koch, Esq. , and an October 20, 2003 letter to Michael Ogle, our current interpretations regarding mobile construction equipment are based on a court decision in 1978. Subsequent legal developments make the holding of that court decision open for reassessment. Moreover, some mobile construction equipment may be using the public roads with greater frequency than the equipment the court decided were not motor vehicles subject to our jurisdiction. At some point in the future, we may revisit the issue of whether certain mobile construction equipment should be considered motor vehicles. However, if we were to take such action, we would announce it publicly, and address such issues as what standards should apply to the vehicles and what effective date is appropriate.

As indicated earlier, your products (other than the Rough Terrain Lift Truck, and the Pull Scraper) appear to be ordinary heavy-duty trucks equipped with special apparatus. Moreover, in view of the apparatus and their potential common uses, it appears that some of the products might travel to and from different short-term jobs. This would be different than the mobile construction equipment that has generally been the subject of our previous interpretations, which would commonly be used for extended periods at construction sites. We do not have detailed information concerning the specific usage patterns of each of the products you ask about. Moreover, while we seek to be helpful in providing opinions about our statutes, we do not have the resources to provide a detailed review of the products of each company. We would think, however, that some of these items may be motor vehicles.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions please contact Mr. George Feygin at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:571
d.8/16/04

ID: 2636o

The Honorable Harris W. Fawell
House of Representatives
Washington DC 20515

Dear Mr. Fawell:

I have been asked to respond to your recent letter asking the Department of Transportation to provide you with information concerning the use of safety belts on school buses. You ask for this information on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Wayne Mann, in the Illinois Palos Community Consolidated Schools. Mr. Mann specifically seeks "factual information relative to seat (lap) belts on school buses," and information on funding for traffic safety programs involving hazardous conditions outside the school bus.

I would like to begin with some background information on our school bus regulations. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for developing safety standards applicable to all new motor vehicles, including school buses. In 1977, we issued a set of motor vehicle safety standards regulating various aspects of school bus performance. Among those standards is Standard 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. Standard 222 requires large school buses (those with a gross vehicle weight rating over 10,000 pounds) to have passenger crash protection through a concept called "compartmentalization."

Compartmentalization requires large school buses to incorporate certain protective elements into the vehicles' interior construction, thereby reducing the risk of injury to school bus passengers without the need for safety belts. These elements include high seats with heavily padded backs and improved seat spacing and performance. (Our regulations require a safety belt for the school bus driver because the driver's position is not compartmentalized. Further, because small school buses experience greater force levels in a crash, passengers on these vehicles need the added safety benefits of the belts.)

School buses continue to have one of the lowest fatality rates for any class of motor vehicle. Large school buses are among the safest motor vehicles because of their size and weight (which generally reduce an occupant's exposure to injury-threatening crash forces); the drivers' training and experience; and the extra care other motorists take when they are near a school bus. For these reasons, NHTSA has not required safety belts in large school buses.

I enclose a copy of a June 1985 NHTSA publication titled "Safety Belts in School Buses," which discusses many of the issues relative to this subject. I think your constituent may find this information helpful.

With respect to hazardous conditions outside the school bus, the agency realizes that there are special problems of driver visibility associated with transporting students. NHTSA has addressed these problems in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 111, Rearview mirrors, paragraph S9. In 1975, NHTSA established special mirror requirements for school buses "to reduce the danger of death or injury to school children (by giving) the school bus driver the fullest possible view of all sides of the vehicle..." (The proposed rule, including this preamble quotation, appears at 40 FR 33828, 33829, August 12, 1975. The final rule was published originally at 41 FR 36023, August 26, 1976.) One of these special requirements is that manufacturers equip a school bus with a crossview mirror that permits the driver to see the area in front of the bus. These special school bus mirror requirements help contribute to the low number of fatalities associated with school bus travel.

Your constituent also mentions funding to implement a program to address hazardous conditions outside the school bus. The agency believes that its school bus regulations effectively address the safety of school bus design and performance, and contribute to occupant safety.

We note, however, that /402 of the Highway Safety Act, provides funds to each State for its use in conducting a highway safety program. Some of these funds are distributed by the State to local governments or organizations within the State. To get information on Illinois' /402 funds, I suggest that your constituent contact the Illinois Governor's Representative for Highway Safety, Mr. Melvin H. Smith, Director, Division of Traffic Safety, 319 Administration Bldg., 2300 South Dirksen Pkwy., Springfield, IL 62764.

If you or Mr. Mann have further questions, I encourage you to contact our agency.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:111#222 d:1/12/88