ID: nht88-2.75

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/18/88 EST

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

TO: GARY EVANS -- PRESIDENT, WESTEX AUTOMOTIVE CORPORATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 2-26-88, TO NHTSA, FROM GARY EVANS-WESTEX

TEXT: This is a response to your letter of February 26, 1988, where you asked the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) whether a product you wish to import and sell in the United States "complies with any standards which may affect it.". You describe the product as a warning triangle that is designed to be attached to the side window of a car. You tell us that this side-mounted triangle is about 20% smaller than the warning device specified in this agency's regulations in Standard 125, War ning Devices. The answer to your question is that the device you described would not comply with Standard 125.

Standard 125 sets uniform specifications for warning devices. Paragraph S3 of Standard 125 states that the standard "applies to devices, without self-contained energy sources, that are designed to be carried in motor vehicles, and used to warn approachi ng traffic of the presence of a stopped vehicle, except for devices designed to be permanently affixed to the vehicle." By its own terms, then, Standard 125 applies to all warning devices that are not designed to be permanently affixed to the vehicle. Y ou are mistaken in suggesting that because the device attaches to the vehicle, Standard 125 is inapplicable. As I understand your description, the device is not "permanently affixed" to the vehicle. Rather, it is carried in the vehicle, and the vehicle operator may attach or remove the device as necessary. Therefore, this device is subject to the requirements of Standard 125.

According to your letter, this device fails to comply with the minimum size requirements set forth in paragraph S5.2.2 of Standard 125. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) specifies that, " No person shall . . . import into the United States any . . . item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect unless it is in conformity with such standard . . ." Standar d 125 took effect on January 1, 1974. Thus, Federal law prohibits you from importing any of the devices described in your letter that were manufactured on or after January 1, 1974.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Joan Tilghman of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht88-2.76

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/18/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: LISA CAPPALLI -- GAGER, HENRY & NARKIS

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: This is a response to your letter of last year to Ms. Tilghman of my staff, seeking an interpretation of Standard 125, Warning Devices (49 CFR @ 571.125). I apologize for the delay in this response. Specifically, you asked whether your client may procee d with the manufacture and distribution of a warning device, which you described further as an equilateral triangle with legs of 10 3/8 inches each. You also enclosed a diagram of the proposed device.

Let me begin by explaining that your client does not need approval from this agency to manufacture or distribute this product. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A); Safety Act) provides that, "No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any . . . item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Fe deral motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard . . ." Section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) establishes a certification process under which each manufacturer is required to certify that its products meet all applicable Federal safety standards. Therefore, your client, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipmet, must certify that this product complies with all applicable standards. This agency has no authority under the Safety A ct to approve, certify, or otherwise endorse any commercial product.

The warning device your client plans to produce is motor vehicle equipment, within the meaning of section 102(4) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(4)). Thus, the question is whether this warning device complies with applicable safety standards.

Paragraph S3 of Standard 125 reads as follows: "This standard applies to devices, without self-contained energy sources, that are designed to be carried in motor vehicles and used to warn approaching traffic of the

presence of a stopped vehicle, except for devices designed to be permanently affixed to the vehicle." Since your client's product falls within this description, your client must certify that the product complies with all requirements of Standard 125. Se ction 108(b)(2) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(2)) requires your client to exercise "due care" in making any such certification.

Based on the description in your letter, it does not appear that your client can certify that this device complies with one of the requirements in Standard 125. Paragraph S5.2.2 of Standard 125 states that, "Each of the three sides of the triangular port ion of the warning device shall be not less than 17 and not more than 22 inches long, and not less than 2 and not more than 3 inches wide." According to your description, the sides of your client's proposed device would be only 10 3/8 inches long. Your client will have to increase the length of the sides in order to certify that this proposed warning device complies with Standard 125. We do not have enough information to offer any opinions as to whether this product appears to comply with the other re quirements of Standard 125.

You asked for information on how your client could obtain an exemption from Standard 125 if necessary. There is no provision in the Safety Act for exempting items of motor vehicle equipment from any applicable safety standard. However, section 157 of th e Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1417) gives this agency the authority to exempt equipment manufacturers from the requirement to give notice to owners and to remedy noncompliances with applicable standards, if the agency determines that the noncompliance is incon sequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. The procedures for implementing this statutory authority are set forth in 49 CFR Part 556, Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance.

Since your client plans to become a manufacturer subject to the requirements of the Safety Act, I am enclosing a copy of a general information sheet that briefly outlines the new manufacturer's responsibilities and explains how to get copies of relevant regulations. If you have some further questions or need further information on this subject, please contact Joan Tilghman of my staff at this address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Enclosure

ID: nht88-2.77

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/20/88

FROM: C. S. ALLEN -- COMMANDER-DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL

TO: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA RULEMAKING DIVISION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: DECEMBER 30, 1988 LETTER FROM JONES TO ALLEN

TEXT: This letter is to request an interpretation of the meaning of one sentence contained in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 102 (FMVSS 102).

This sentence, found in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR) Part 571, Section 571.102 S3.1.3, states, "Starter interlock. The engine starter shall be inoperative when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive positio n".

The California Highway Patrol has become aware that a major manufacturer of school buses, Crown Coach Incorporated, of 13799 Monte Vista Avenue, Chino, California 91710-5513, has been building vehicles equipped with automatic transmissions which, althoug h equipped with the interlock required by 49 CFR 571.102 S3.1.3, are also equipped, at the driver's position, with a momentary contact push-button switch, the purpose of which is to bypass the transmission neutral safety switch.

Mr. Greg Alvarez of my staff discussed the legality of this device with Mr. James Cowan, Director of Engineering at Crown Coach, Inc., by telephone on June 24, 1988. At that time Mr. Cowan stated his opinion that the bypass switch complied with FMVSS 10 2 because it was only an emergency feature, not intended to be used for routine engine starts. He stated that the only way the bus could be started with the transmission shift level in a forward or reverse drive position would be if the driver used both hands, one to operate the bypass switch to the right of the steering column, and the other to operate the regular starter key-type switch to the left of the steering column.

Mr. Cowan stated to this Department that this starter interlock bypass switch is regarded by Crown Coach as a safety feature, intended for emergency use in

the event that the bus engine dies at an inopportune moment, as when crossing a set of railroad tracks, or in case the neutral safety switch contacts fail to close upon selection of neutral range.

Pending your reply it is our position that the bypass switch renders buses equipped with automatic transmissions in violation of FMVSS 102 (and of an identical California state regulation). Crown Coach appears to be interpreting FMVSS 102 as meaning tha t the starter shall not be capable of being started from the driver's position with the transmission in gear unless the driver intends to do that.

As for the argument that the bypass switch allows for quick restarts on rail crossings or other dangerous locations, we feel that if the amount of time required to select neutral range, restart the engine and return to drive range is anticipated to be ex cessive, why not eliminate the neutral safety switch altogether? The driver would then be able to keep one hand on the steering wheel while restarting the engine with the transmission in gear. With Crown's present arrangement, a bus can be restarted in gear only by removing both hands from the steering wheel.

It is our belief that 49 CFR 571.102 S3.1.3 is intended to prevent motor vehicles equipped with automatic transmissions from being started in gear at any time. We would appreciate your earliest possible response to our request for an interpretation on t his matter, so that our inspectors and the engineering staff at Crown Coach, Inc. will have authoritative information on which to act.

ID: nht88-2.78

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/22/88

FROM: GARRY GALLAGHER -- VP METZELER MOTORCYCLE TIRE

TO: LARRY COOK -- OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNCIL N.H.T.S.A

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/01/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES TO GARRY GALLAGHER; REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 119

TEXT: Dear Larry,

Per our phone conversation back on June 15, 1988. I am requesting a written determination in regards to specific requirements within the size designations on the side walls of motorcycle tires.

My inquiry involves code #571.119 - section S6.5-c. As you may recall, my specific question was whether the letter B was required within the size designation if the tire is of bias-belted construction.

As Metzeler Motorcycle tires are manufactured in Germany, we meet the sizing requirements and listings of the E.T.R.T.O.

A Metzeler bias-belted tire is marked with both the number of plies and material of the plies of both the tread and sidewalls of the carcas. The letter B is sometimes added to the size as an internal code.

Your verbal determination over the phone was that the letter B was not an actual requirement. This letter serves to request a written determination.

Thank you for your assistance. Please call me if you have any further information or questions.

ID: nht88-2.79

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/24/88

FROM: STEPHEN BORKOWSKI

TO: ERICA JONES -- NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATOR

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/10/88 TO STEPHEN BORKOWSKI FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 108

TEXT: This letter is request for the legality of my Bimmer Dimmer Safety Stop Light Concept. It utilizes various devices to govern the intensity of brake light brightness to indicate the degree of braking being applied to a vehicle. The goal of my concept is to lessen the chance of rear end collisions.

My concept was borne by a personal experience of mine in which I was able to avoid crashing into a car in front of me but four cars behind me were not able to escape damage as a result of multiple rear end collisions.

As a driver with 40 years of experience with a good driving record, I pondered over why or what I did wrong that put me into such a situation. My conclusion is that through the years I was lulled into a false sense of security. I realized there were co untless number of times when I was in a line of cars that were slowing down and the brake lights of the car or cars in front of me were lit even though we all were in the process of moving. Also, there are many times when drivers "ride" the brakes in hi gh density traffic. The activated stop light, therefore, does not indicate a drivers intent to actually come to a stop or the degree of his slowing down.

In the military as well as in other organizations, people are trained for emergency situations so that they will react in the correct manner, subconsciously. If drivers can learn to apply their brakes quickly and fully when they see a very bright red br ake light, I believe a false sense of security will not be developed and thus, hopefully, rear end collision can be reduced. I would like to pursue to research and develop my concept to test its validity and effectiveness.

I would appreciate any advice and suggestions that I should have in seeing how I could make it legal.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-2.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/27/88

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

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

TITLE: NONE

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

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

Sincerely,

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

[DRAWING OMITTED]

ID: nht92-4.30

DATE: August 20, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: R. Marie McFadden -- Cable Car Concepts Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/23/92 from R. Marie McFadden to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7468)

TEXT:

This responds to your June 23, 1992 letter requesting information on Federal regulations concerning safety belts and seating in vehicles manufactured by your company. These vehicles are the "Mini Trolley," the "Road Train," and the "Trolley Tram." You indicated that these vehicles can be used on the highway and are motorized, licensed vehicles.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. Our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et sec., Safety Act), to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

NHTSA's safety standards specify different requirements for different types of motor vehicles. Therefore, in order to answer your specific questions, it is necessary to determine how each of your vehicles is classified under our regulations. NHTSA defines a "bus" as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons." Your literature indicates that the "Mini Trolley" has a passenger capacity of 18, and that the power unit of the "Trolley Tram" has a passenger capacity of 22. Therefore, both of these vehicles would be considered a "bus" for the purpose of Federal regulations.

NHTSA defines a "truck" as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment."

The power unit of the "Road Train" has seating capacity for only one passenger, and the primary use appears to be to draw the coaches. Therefore, it appears that this vehicle is a "truck" for the purpose of Federal regulations.

NHTSA defines a "trailer" as "a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle." The coaches for the "Road Train" and the "Trolley Tram" would be considered trailers for the purpose of Federal regulations.

Your specific questions and the answers to each follow. You asked us to answer these questions for vehicles manufactured both before and after September 1,

1991.

1. Our small unit has a GVW of 12,300, we understand that we need seat belts for the driver only, this small unit is an eighteen passenger. Our largest is a thirty-two passenger unit with a GVW of 17,000 lbs.

The safety belt installation requirements are set forth in Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. This standard specifies requirements based on vehicle type and seating position within the vehicle. Different requirements also apply depending on the GVWR of the vehicle. The discussion which follows is limited to vehicles with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds.

As explained below, buses such as the "Mini Trolley" and the power unit of the "Trolley Tram" are required to have, at a minimum, a lap belt at the driver's position; trucks such as the power unit of the "Road Train" are required to have, at a minimum, a lap belt at every designated seating position; and trailers such as the coaches for the "Road Train" and the "Trolley Tram" are not required to have any type of safety belt at any seating position.

The requirements for buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds are contained in S4.4 of Standard No. 208. Section S4.4.1 gives vehicle manufacturers a choice of two options for providing occupant crash protection in buses manufactured on or after January 1, 1972 and before September 1, 1990. Option 1, set forth in S4.4.1.1, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide an automatic protection system at the driver's seating position that meets the frontal and lateral crash protection and rollover requirements. Option 2, set forth in S4.4.1.2 requires vehicle manufacturers to install a lap or lap/shoulder belt at the driver's seating position. Buses manufactured on or after September 1, 1990 are allowed the same two options, however, S4.4.2.2 specifies that, if a manufacturer chooses to comply with Option 2, the lap belt or pelvic portion of the lap/shoulder belt must have either an emergency locking retractor (ELR) or an automatic locking retractor (ALR).

The requirements for trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more are contained in section S4.3 of Standard No. 208. Section 4.3.1 gives vehicle manufacturers a choice of two options for providing occupant crash protection in trucks manufactured on or after January 1, 1972 and before September 1, 1990. Option 1, set forth in S4.3.1.1, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide an automatic protection system at all seating positions that meets the frontal and lateral crash protection and rollover requirements. Option 2, set forth in S4.3.1.2 requires vehicle manufacturers to install lap or lap/shoulder belts at every seating position. Trucks manufactured on or after September 1, 1990 are allowed the same two options, however, S4.3.2 specifies that, if a manufacturer chooses to comply with Option 2, the lap belt or pelvic portion of a lap/shoulder belt must have either an ELR or an ALR.

Standard No. 208 does not apply to trailers. Therefore, the coaches for the "Road Train" and the "Trolley Tram" are not required to have safety belts.

2. As you can see on our Tram specs we do have oak seats, is there a ruling on this at all.

The seating requirements are contained in Standard No. 207, Seating Systems. This standard includes strength requirements for all "occupant seats" in passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks, and for the driver's seats in buses, except that the requirements do not apply to side-facing seats. Therefore, the driver's seat in the "Mini Trolley" and the power unit of the "Trolley Tram," and all "occupant seats" in the power unit of the "Road Train" must meet the requirements of Standard No. 207. The standard does not specify that seats must be made of a particular material; therefore, oak seats are permitted if they comply with the standard.

As with Standard No. 208, Standard No. 207 does not apply to trailers. Therefore, the seats in the coaches for the "Road Train" and the "Trolley Tram" are not subject to the requirements of Standard No. 207.

We have one seat on some of our vehicles that we refer to as a jump seat it is located in front of the entrance door, this seats two people and faces the driver. Would the same ruling apply to this seat as for the other passenger seats.

As stated above, Standard No. 207 applies only to the driver's seat in buses such as the "Mini Trolley" or the power unit of the "Trolley Tram." If the jump seat is in the power unit of the "Road Train," and if it is not a side-facing seat, it must meet the requirements of Standard No. 207 if it is an "occupant seat" as defined in that standard.

Section S3 of Standard No. 207 defines an "occupant seat" as "a seat that provides at least one designated seating position." A "designated seating position" is defined at 49 CFR S571.3 as

any plain view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats.

Your letter does not contain enough information to determine whether your seat would be considered an auxiliary seating position. If it is, it is not subject to Standard No. 207.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-4.31

DATE: August 20, 1992

FROM: Richard Allison -- Program Manager, The Bott Group, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS No. 216, "Roof Crush Resistance-Passenger Cars", Request for Interpretation

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/21/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Richard Allison (A39; Std. 216)

TEXT:

The Bott Group, Inc. (a Design, Sales & Engineering firm for manufacturers of roof racks (luggage racks), decklid racks and accessories), on behalf of all O.E.M. clients who use our products, requests the Agency render an interpretation of the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 216, "Roof Crush Resistance-Passenger Cars", while considering the conditions as described herein.

To be specific, The Bott Group requests an interpretation of 1) the proper application and orientation of the test device (S6.2 of this standard) and 2) the distance the test device is allowed to travel (paragraph S4 of this standard), when testing vehicles equipped with roof mounted accessories, such as roof racks (luggage racks).

This accessory neither contributes to nor detracts from the actual strength of the roof panel and would collapse easily upon application of the forces as specified in paragraph S6.3 of the standard. The roof rack examples we present for consideration, in the attached documentation, can be easily removed for compliance testing.

Roof racks are positioned on the roof panel surface to lend aesthetic enhancement to vehicle contours. This could influence the positioning of the test device (per S6.2), as well as render impossible compliance with the maximum allowed travel of the test device (per S4), and thus, not achieve the true objective of the standard.

The Bott Group roof rack designs fall into two unique categories:

1) Four Seasons Style Has adjustable/removable crossbar assemblies with end supports that move fore and aft above the vehicle roof in fixed, outer channels. Refer to Figure 1 on attachment "A".

2) Elevated Siderail Style (with fixed position end supports) Has adjustable crossbar assemblies that move fore and aft above the roof surface by sliding in an elevated, channeled siderail assembly, however, the end supports are in fixed positions on the vehicle roof. Refer to Figure 2 on attachment "B".

Please consider, for instance, the roof rack example in Figure 2 on attachment "B". The fixed position, front end support of the siderail assembly is mounted in the area of the "B" pillar on the roof surface.

Under normal conditions this style of roof rack assembly is not removable during use, but it can be easily removed for testing.

The adjustable crossbar assembly on the roof rack example shown in Figure 1 on attachment "A" (normal forward positioning is also in the "B" pillar area) can:

1) be adjusted to its rearward most position out of the contact area of the test device or,

2) be removed completely or,

3) the entire roof rack assembly can be easily removed for testing.

The Bott Group believes that there are three different test conditions which should be considered. We have illustrated the differences in the positioning of the test device (refer to Figure 3 on attachment "C").

Condition 1- Test conducted without a roof rack installed or the roof rack has been removed and the test device has been positioned as outlined in S6.2. The first point of contact has been established and is indicated (marked "A").

NOTE: Test condition 2 & 3 assumes that the "elevated siderail style" roof rack with the fixed position end supports is used.

Condition 2- Test conducted with a roof rack installed and the test device positioned the same as in test condition-1. Using the first point of contact established in condition-1 (marked "A"), as reference, the test proceeded. The actual first point of contact during this condition was to the fixed end support of the roof rack (marked "B") and this was a considerable distance rearward from the original contact point "A" established in condition-1.

The dimension between point "A" and point "B" varies according to the fore/aft positioning of the fixed end support of the roof rack on the roof surface.

When the first point of contact, "B", occurred, the second item we identified was a gap between the bottom of the test device and the roof surface at point "A". This may not comply with S6.2(c).

Condition 3- Test conducted with a roof rack installed and the test device positioned as outlined in S6.2 to the contact point (marked "B") established in test condition-2. This condition seemed to create three situations.

a) The complete test device is relocated some distance rearward of the original positioning in test condition-1 and its established contact point (marked "A"). This may not provide test requirements per S4, S6.2 & S6.4 of the standard.

b) The positioning of the test device left a gap between the bottom surface of the test device and the surface of the roof at point "A". The test device, not being tangent to the surface of the vehicle roof, when first point of contact occurs, may not comply with S6.2(c) of the standard.

c) With the test device not making contact (not tangent) with the roof surface at point "A" when the required pressure is applied to the test device, as specified in S6.3, a considerable amount of test device travel is required before contact (tangency) with the roof surface point "A" is made. This may cause non-compliance with S4, as measured in accordance with S6.4, of the standard.

The Bott Group requests the Agency's interpretation of which test condition above, number 1, 2 or 3, is correct and thus, satisfies the intent of FMVSS No. 216.

If test condition 2 or 3 is deemed correct, can the additional amount of test device travel, required between first point of contact and the actual contact (point "A") on the roof surface, be added to the "allowed distance" of test device travel when determining compliance with paragraph S4 of the standard?

The Bott Group is concerned for the timeliness of this matter because of the design timelines we work under (several model years in advance) and we would like to thank the Agency, in advance, for its kind, prompt, attention and consideration of this matter.

(Figures omitted)

ID: nht92-4.32

DATE: August 19, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: C.N. Littler -- Coordinator, Regulatory Affairs, Motor Coach Industries

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/25/92 from C.N. Littler to Mary Versailles (OCC 7339)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of May 25, 1992, concerning possible federal preemption of a bill that has been introduced in the New York State legislature. The bill would require any intercity bus that is operated in the State of New York manufactured on or after July 1, 1993 to be equipped with safety belts at every seating position, unless the bus is operated by a motor carrier which does not operate anually more than 100 days or more than 10,000 vehicle miles within the State of New York. After reviewing the copy of this bill enclosed with your letter, we have concluded that it appears to be preempted by Federal law, to the extent that it requires the installation of seat belts for passenger seats of buses that have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of more than 10,000 pounds and that are not State-owned vehicles. This conclusion is explained in detail below.

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

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard ... is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent ... any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard.

Section 103(d) preempts New York's proposed law if that law covers the same aspect of performance as an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard, and is different from the applicable Federal standard, with one exception. It would not preempt the law to the extent that the law imposes a higher level of performance upon vehicles procured for use by the State or any of its political subdivisions.

In this case, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208) "specifies performance requirements for the protection of vehicle occupants in crashes." (S1 of Standard No. 208). Section S4.4 of Standard No. 208 specifies performance requirements for the protection of bus occupants. Accordingly, there is a Federal motor vehicle safety standard in effect and that standard establishes performance requirements for occupant protection in buses. The question then is whether the proposed New York State law, which

applies to the same aspect of performance, is either identical to Standard No. 208's requirements.

The applicable performance requirements for occupant protection at passenger seats in buses manufactured on or after September 1, 1991, differ, depending upon whether the vehicle has a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less or a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds. For buses (other than school buses) with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, S4.4.3.2 of Standard No. 208 requires a lap/shoulder belt to be provided at every forward-facing outboard seating position, and either a lap belt or a lap/shoulder belt to be provided at every other seating position. New York's law, requiring seat belts at every seating position in buses, would not be preempted with respect to these small buses if it were interpreted to require the same types of safety belts as required under Standard No. 208.

With respect to buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds, manufactured on or after September 1, 1991, S4.4.3.1 of Standard No. 208 requires compliance with either of two options for the driver's seating position, the installation of an automatic restraint or the installation of either a lap belt or lap/shoulder belt, and does not require any type of occupant protection system at any other seating position. NHTSA expressly determined that there is not a safety 'need for safety belts or another type of occupant crash protection at these seating positions. See, 39 FR 27585, July 30, 1974. With respect to these large buses, the New York bill would be preempted to the extent that it requires seat belts to be installed at seating positions other than the driver's seating position.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-4.33

DATE: August 18, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Timber Dick -- Safeline Children's Products Co.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/18/92 from Timber Dick to Deirdre Fujita (OCC 7293)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter concerning Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems," and the Sit'n'Stroll child restraint system you manufacture. The restraint is designed to be rear-facing for children weighing up to 25 pounds.

Your letter relates to our April 22, 1992 interpretation to Mr. Mark Sedlack regarding rear-facing restraints for children weighing up to 25 pounds. In that letter, I stated that under Standard No. 213, such a restraint could be tested with either the six-month-old or the three-year-old dummy in the agency's compliance tests. I further stated that the restraint must physically permit the dummies to be positioned in accordance with the procedures in S6.1.2.3.1 of Standard No. 213. If the restraint cannot permit the dummies to be so positioned, the restraint cannot be recommended for children weighing more than 20 pounds.

You ask whether we would consider the Sit'n'Stroll as permitting the proper positioning of the three-year-old dummy. The photographs enclosed with your letter show the dummy in the restraint with its legs at a right angle to the torso. The backs of the dummy's heels rest on the standard seat assembly's seat back, about five inches below the top of the seat back.

At the outset, I must note that NHTSA cannot provide you with an unqualified answer on whether your restraint accommodates the three-year-old dummy, because we do not know the details of your design. However, we can offer general guidance on the positioning of the dummy's legs, an aspect of the dummy's positioning that is of particular concern to you.

S6.1.2.3.1(b) and (d) of Standard No. 213 specify the procedure for positioning the three-year-old dummy's legs in the child restraint. S6.1.2.3.1(b) states: "... Extend the legs of the dummy as far as possible in the forward horizontal direction, with the dummy feet perpendicular to the centerline of the lower legs." S6.1.2.3.1(d) states: "...(R)otate each dummy limb downwards in the plane parallel to the dummy's midsagittal plane until the limb contacts a surface of the child restraint system or the standard seat .... Position the limbs, if necessary, so that limb placement does not inhibit torso or head movement in (the standard's dynamic) tests...."

Based on the photographs you enclosed, the Sit'n'Stroll permits the dummy's legs to be positioned as specified in S6.1.2.3.1(b). That is, the legs are extended "as far as possible" in the forward horizontal direction. The standard does not specify whether "forward" is relative to the standard seat assembly or to the child. However, interpreting "forward" as relative to the seat assembly would have the effect of disallowing the use of the three-year-old dummy to test a rear-facing restraint, since the positioning procedures would be inappropriate for the restraint. In the absence of

language in the standard to that effect, we are disinclined to so conclude. Instead, we conclude "forward" as used in S6.1.2.3.1(b) is relative to the child.

Although the Sit'n'Stroll permits the legs to be positioned in accordance with S6.1.2.3.1(b), under S6.1.2.3.1(d) the leg placement must not inhibit torso or head movement during the dynamic tests of the standard. It does not appear that the dummy's legs would inhibit torso or head movement due to the forward (relative to the seat assembly) movement of the torso and head in the dynamic tests. However, we cannot make a definite determination based on the information in your letter.

Please note that it is likely that NHTSA will propose amending Standard No. 213 such that a child restraint designed for use with children weighing up to 25 pounds would be tested with a new array of child test dummies, such as the 9-month-old dummy described in subpart J of our regulations (49 CFR Part 572). It is possible that a future amendment to the standard could specify that a new dummy, such as the 9-month-old, will be used instead of the 3-year-old dummy to test such a child restraint. NHTSA has announced its intention to consider rulemaking on incorporating new dummies, including the 9-month-old, in Standard No. 213 compliance tests. This intention was discussed at length in NHTSA's "Planning Document on Potential Standard 213 Upgrade," July 1991.

I also would like to note our concern with the ability of your restraint to meet Standard No. 213's occupant excursion requirement (S5.1.3.2). S5.1.3.2 states: "In the case of each rear-facing child restraint system, (in a dynamic test) ... no portion of the target point on either side of the dummy's head shall pass through the transverse orthogonal planes whose intersection contains, the forward-most and top-most points on the child restraint system surfaces ...." It appears from your photograph that the restraint's seat back might be too low to enable the restraint to meet S5.1.3.2 in a dynamic test. One means of avoiding any potential compliance problem with the excursion requirement would be for your company to raise the height of the seat back on this child restraint system.

I hope this information is helpful.