ID: aiam4932

"Dear Ms. Nowak-Vanderhoef: This responds to your request for a interpretation of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR 571.209). Specifically, you asked if General Motors Corporation (GM) could include the term 'dynamically-tested' in the label required by S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209. The answer is that GM may do so. Prior to September 1, 1992, S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 requires a dynamically tested manual belt to be labeled with the following statement: 'This dynamically-tested seat belt assembly is for use only in (insert specific seating position(s), e.g., front right) in (insert specific vehicle make(s) and model(s)). However, a November 4, 1991 final rule, published at 56 FR 56323, amended S4.6(b) by deleting the term 'dynamically-tested' from the required label, effective September 1, 1992. GM would like to continue to include the term 'dynamically-tested' on its labels. NHTSA has often addressed the issue of whether additional information may be provided along with information that is required to be labeled on the product in the context of our safety standards that apply to tires. NHTSA has consistently stated that additional information may be included on tires, provided that the additional information 'does not obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information, or otherwise defeat its purpose.' See, e.g., our May 31, 1988 letter to Mr. Garry Gallagher of Metzeler Motorcycle Tire. This is the same test we would apply in any of our safety standards for additional information that is provided along with required labeling information. Applying this test to the situation at hand, the purpose of the labeling requirements in Standard No. 209 is to minimize the likelihood of improper installations of dynamically-tested manual belts, by specifying the particular vehicles and seating positions in which the belts are designed to be installed. GM's proposed labels would provide the information about the particular vehicles and seating positions in which the belts are designed to be installed on the label of these belts. The only difference between GM's proposed labels and the exact language specified in S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 would be that GM's proposed labels would describe the belts as 'dynamically-tested seat belt assemblies,' instead of 'seat belt assemblies.' We do not see how this additional description of the belts, which is accurate and consistent with the agency's use of the term 'dynamically-tested,' would obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information or otherwise defeat its purpose. Therefore, GM's proposed labeling would be permitted under the provisions of S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 that take effect September 1, 1992. Enclosed with your letter was a petition for reconsideration that you asked be considered if the agency determined that the current language of S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 prohibited the additional information to be provided on the GM labels. Since NHTSA has concluded that Standard No. 209 permits the additional information, we are disregarding that petition for reconsideration and will take no action on it. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam0041

Dear Mr. Schrum: Thank you for your letters of July 30, and August 9, 1968, concernin the test of seat belt anchorages which are anchored to a seat.; On the question regarding the test method for applying the load specified in paragraph S3.1.1, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, we would agree with your conclusion to apply the loads at the required different points and directions simultaneously.; On the question of whether bucket seats with seat belt anchorage attached may be tested separately, the applicable paragraph in SAE J787b is 5.2 rather than 5.1 as stated in your letter. There is no test method specified therein relative to this question and accordingly, test of the bucket seat with seat belt anchorages attached may be tested either separately or in sets.; Sincerely, H. M. Jacklin, Jr., Acting Director, Motor Vehicle Safet Performance Service;

ID: aiam5525

Dear Ms. Gottlieb: This responds to your letter of February 14, 1995 requesting an 'exemption' from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to allow a business to modify your motor vehicle. Your letter states: I am disabled and need 3-4' of additional room for the passenger seat to allow my legs to straighten on long trips. I have two replaced hips and arthritis in my knees. If I leave my legs slightly bent for long periods of time, I suffer too much pain to be active at the end of the drive. By allowing my legs to straighten all the way out, there is no pain at all. You state that you were told that this modification cannot be done as it would 'interfere with the functionality of the air bag.' In summary, our answer is that you may have your vehicle modified. NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that modifies the seat on your vehicle to accommodate your condition. A more detailed answer to your letter is provided below. I would like to begin by clarifying that there is no procedure by which persons petition for and are granted an exemption from NHTSA to have a motor vehicle repair business modify their motor vehicle. Repair businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to certain regulatory limits on the type of modifications they may make. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our requirements to provide some allowances to a repair business which cannot conform to our requirements when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities. Since your situation is among those given special consideration by NHTSA, this letter should provide you with the relief you seek. Our agency is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from 'knowingly making inoperative' any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. In general, the 'make inoperative' prohibition would require repair businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil fines up to $1,000 per violation. Moving a seat could affect compliance with Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Standard No. 208 sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in a vehicles. Standard No. 208 requires that cars be equipped with automatic crash protection at the front outboard seating positions. Automatic crash protection systems protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, in a 30 mph barrier crash test. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used). Based on the information in your letter, it appears that the manufacturer of your vehicle installed air bags as the means of complying with Standard No. 208's requirement. Your modifier is concerned that the modification of the seat would 'make inoperative' the air bag. I would like to note that accident data would suggest that a person is at greater risk of injury from an air bag from sitting too close to the air bag, rather than further away from the air bag. However, I understand that, due to the dynamic testing requirement, the modifier will be unable to ensure that the vehicle continues to comply with Standard No. 208's requirements. In situations such as yours where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider any violations of the 'make inoperative' prohibition a purely technical one justified by public need. As I have already noted above, NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that modifies the seat on your vehicle to accommodate your condition. We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made to the seat, and the person making the modifications should consider the possible safety consequences of the modifications. For example, in moving a seat, it is critical that the modifier ensure that the seat is solidly anchored in its new location. You should also be aware that an occupant of a seat which has been moved rearward may have less protection in a crash if the seat is too far rearward relative to the anchorages of the safety belts for that seat. Finally, if you sell your vehicle, we encourage you to advise the purchaser of the modifications. I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions or need some additional information in this area, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam5526

Dear Ms. Gottlieb: This responds to your letter of February 14, 1995 requesting an 'exemption' from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to allow a business to modify your motor vehicle. Your letter states: I am disabled and need 3-4' of additional room for the passenger seat to allow my legs to straighten on long trips. I have two replaced hips and arthritis in my knees. If I leave my legs slightly bent for long periods of time, I suffer too much pain to be active at the end of the drive. By allowing my legs to straighten all the way out, there is no pain at all. You state that you were told that this modification cannot be done as it would 'interfere with the functionality of the air bag.' In summary, our answer is that you may have your vehicle modified. NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that modifies the seat on your vehicle to accommodate your condition. A more detailed answer to your letter is provided below. I would like to begin by clarifying that there is no procedure by which persons petition for and are granted an exemption from NHTSA to have a motor vehicle repair business modify their motor vehicle. Repair businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to certain regulatory limits on the type of modifications they may make. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our requirements to provide some allowances to a repair business which cannot conform to our requirements when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities. Since your situation is among those given special consideration by NHTSA, this letter should provide you with the relief you seek. Our agency is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from 'knowingly making inoperative' any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. In general, the 'make inoperative' prohibition would require repair businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil fines up to $1,000 per violation. Moving a seat could affect compliance with Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Standard No. 208 sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in a vehicles. Standard No. 208 requires that cars be equipped with automatic crash protection at the front outboard seating positions. Automatic crash protection systems protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, in a 30 mph barrier crash test. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used). Based on the information in your letter, it appears that the manufacturer of your vehicle installed air bags as the means of complying with Standard No. 208's requirement. Your modifier is concerned that the modification of the seat would 'make inoperative' the air bag. I would like to note that accident data would suggest that a person is at greater risk of injury from an air bag from sitting too close to the air bag, rather than further away from the air bag. However, I understand that, due to the dynamic testing requirement, the modifier will be unable to ensure that the vehicle continues to comply with Standard No. 208's requirements. In situations such as yours where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider any violations of the 'make inoperative' prohibition a purely technical one justified by public need. As I have already noted above, NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that modifies the seat on your vehicle to accommodate your condition. We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made to the seat, and the person making the modifications should consider the possible safety consequences of the modifications. For example, in moving a seat, it is critical that the modifier ensure that the seat is solidly anchored in its new location. You should also be aware that an occupant of a seat which has been moved rearward may have less protection in a crash if the seat is too far rearward relative to the anchorages of the safety belts for that seat. Finally, if you sell your vehicle, we encourage you to advise the purchaser of the modifications. I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions or need some additional information in this area, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam4510

"Dear Mr. Friedman: This is a response to your letter dated Novembe 17, 1987, asking whether two child restraint systems you have designed comply with certain requirements of Federal motor vehicle safety standard 213, Child Restraint Systems. You call one system 'Cradle Safe,' and describe it as an inclined, rear-facing, deformable, vinyl-covered woodfiber board carrier designed to restrain new-born infants from 4.5 to 14 lbs. The second system you call 'Premie Cradle,' and describe it as a recumbent, rear-facing, deformable, vinyl-covered woodfiber board carrier designed for premature infants from 4 to 6 lbs. Your letter assesses the performance attributes of these systems as follows: 'In an accident the baby is oriented and cushioned to avoid injury and ejection by a deformable, energy absorbing 'bed' and 'shell' without harnessing the infant. The bed and its crushable extensions (wings) cause the infant to rotate and take acceleration forces through its back and limit those applied to the head. After rotation, the infant is cushioned by the collapsing bed.' You state your belief that both systems comply with applicable provisions of Standard 213, but ask for our comment because 'the designs are innovative and make the applicability and interpretation of certain paragraphs of the standard not entirely obvious.' To help the agency better understand your products and the methods you used to test performance, you requested that agency staff meet with you, and your colleague, Mr. David Shinn. On April 12, 1988, a meeting was held with you, Mr. Shinn, and agency staff from the following offices: Chief Counsel, Enforcement, Plans and Policy, Research and Development, Rulemaking, and Traffic Safety Programs. At that meeting, you and Mr. Shinn presented a video-film showing two sled-tests of your cradle-safe restraint system, one with a NHTSA-specified, 17 pound dummy, and one with an EEC eight pound dummy. In the video film, your child restraint system broke apart in the 30 mph test with the 17 pound dummy, but appeared to maintain its structural integrity when tested with the eight pound dummy. You did not show a sled-test with your 'Premie Cradle' product. By a letter dated June 8, 1988, you informed this agency that you had performed tests of a 'modified' Cradle-Safe restraint system, and that this system will contain the NHTSA-specified 17 pound dummy in simulated barrier-impact testing under Standard 213. You state further that a restraint system you call 'One-ride' also will contain a 17 pound dummy in Standard 213 testing. (You did not address the 'One-ride' restraint in your November 17, 1987, correspondence, nor did you present it during the April 12, 1988 meeting.) Your June 8 letter also references a letter of July 22, 1987, addressed to Mr. Val Radovich of this agency, a June 3, 1988 video tape showing a simulated barrier impact test of your Cradle-Safe seat with a 17 pound dummy, and submissions of patent documents in support of a patent application for your products. As NHTSA staff understood from your November 17, 1987 letter, and the April 12, 1988 meeting, your principal question was whether you could test a Standard 213 child restraint system with an eight or 14 pound dummy (rather than the specified 17 pound dummy), if you intended to label the restraint as appropriate for children from 4.5 to 10 pounds. You briefly addressed the other matters raised in your November 17, letter, clarifying a reference to an 'unspecified belt provided for use outside the vehicle and not required in (Standard 213) testing.' You explained that the 'belt' to which you refer is a two-piece, cloth wrap that anchors at either side of the restraint, and fastens over the child with a velcro attachment. I shall respond to your comments in the order that you present them in your letter, also discussing new matters raised in the meeting, in the June 8, 1988 letter, and in your other submissions where appropriate. I will not discuss the patent materials because they are not relevant to a determination of whether your restraint systems comply with Standard 213. In responding to your comments, I assume that we are discussing only those child restraint systems designed for children weighing less than 20 pounds (infant restraints). Your First Comment. Paragraph 5.1.1.a dealing with Child Restraint System Integrity specifies 'no complete...and no partial separation' of surfaces. Our design is deformable and involves materials of 1/4' thickness which in deforming, tear slightly. However when torn these materials are not lacerating and not likely to come into contact with the infant. Response. Paragraph S5.1.1(a) states that when a child restraint is tested as specified in the Standard, the system shall: Exhibit no complete separation of any load bearing structural element and no partial separation exposing either surfaces with a radius of less than 1/4 inch or surfaces with protrusions greater than 3/8 inch above the immediate adjacent surrounding contactable surface of any structural element of the system. If the system failure you describe as tearing of materials at the system surface does not result in a failure of the load-bearing structure of the system, then paragraph S5.1.1(a) is inapplicable. In 1978, NHTSA proposed adding this language to 213 as one of a number of amendments to the Standard that would upgrade performance requirements, improve performance criteria, and require dynamic testing of child restraint systems using anthropomorphic test dummies. (43 FR 21470, 21473, May 18, 1978.) In the preamble of that document, we stated that our objectives in promulgating the system integrity requirements were to prevent a child's excessive excursion or ejection from the system, and to ensure that the system does not fracture or separate in such a way as to harm the child. (43 FR 21470, 21473.) To accomplish this objective, Standard 213 requires that in dynamic testing, any load-bearing, structural element of a child restraint system must not separate completely, and that any partial separation must not expose surfaces with sharp edges that may contact the child. Id. Your letter states that some materials at the surface of your system may tear during an impact. In promulgating S5.1.1(a), the agency intended to minimize dangers resulting from failures in the structural integrity of the system, rather than failures in the materials. The agency did not intend to preclude a manufacturer from designing some deformation into a child restraint system to improve the system's energy absorption performance. Your Second Comment. Paragraph 5.2.3.2.b The system surface in contact with the infant's head shall be covered with slow recovery, energy absorbing material. Although our system surfaces are not covered, they are fabricated out of such material. The system surface in contact with the infants head (the bed) is 3/16' woodfiber separated by air from a similar material in the shell. The system complies with the requirement and when dynamically tested exhibits deformation much better than a 25% compression-deflection, but there is no appropriate ASTM Test Standard such as for open or closed cell foam. Response. As I read your comment, you raise three issues which I shall address separately. The first is whether the material from which you fabricate your system can meet the S5.2.3.2(b) requirement that a child restraint system must be 'covered' with slow recovery, energy absorbing material. The agency's long-standing position is that a given type of surface material is an acceptable 'covering' if it is a flexible material that would meet the thickness and performance requirements for energy-absorbing padding set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) of S5.2.3.2. The surface needn't have a separate layer of energy-absorbing padding. The second issue is whether 3/16 inch woodfiber is a sufficient thickness for a system surface. This thickness would not comply with S5.2.3.2(b) of Standard 213. That subparagraph requires thicknesses of at least 1/2 or 3/4 inch, depending on the material's compression-deflection performance as measured in the static testing specified in S6.3 of Standard 213. You assert that the 3/16 inch thickness material used in your systems exceeds a 25% compression-deflection measurement in dynamic testing. In the preamble to the final rule amending Standard 213, NHTSA responded to commenters who suggested that specifying a minimum thickness for the infant restraint surface was design-restrictive. (44 FR 72131, 72135, December 13, 1979.) We explained in that document that we set these minimum thickness requirements because there was no available test device to measure the energy absorption properties of either the surface or underlying structure of an infant restraint in dynamic testing. Consequently, the agency specified 'long-established static tests' of the surface material, and established minimum thickness requirements based on the results of those static tests. Therefore, a compression-deflection measurement derived from dynamic testing is not an acceptable test of compliance with paragraph S5.2.3.2. The third issue is whether the compression-deflection measurement for this system must be derived from tests under one of the ASTM standards in S6.3, even though none of the ASTM titles expressly states that the test is for woodfiber, and all three procedures are for static tests. Paragraph S5.2.3.2(b) requires that when one tests the energy absorption properties of child restraint materials, those tests must be conducted under one of three ASTM static test procedures set out in paragraph S6.3 of Standard 213. Your restraint systems are made of woodfiber. Woodfiber - or any material that meets the Standard's requirements - can be an acceptable substance out of which to fabricate a child restraint. As NHTSA stated in the final rule preamble cited earlier, the agency wishes to allow restraint manufacturers to use a wide range of materials, provided that the material exhibits acceptable energy absorption properties. You may use any ASTM title specified in paragraph S6.3 to test your surface material, and the material is acceptable if it displays the required energy absorption properties when tested under one of those titles. Your Third Comment. Paragraph 5.4.3.1 'Each belt that is part of a child restraint system and that is designed to restrain a child using the system...' is interpreted to mean that a soft unspecified belt provided for use outside the vehicle and not required in testing, need not conform to this paragraph. Response. As you explained in the April 12, meeting, the 'belt' to which you refer is the cloth device described in the beginning of this letter. By its express terms, paragraph S5.4.3.1 is inapplicable to belts that are (1) not part of the child restraint system and (2) not designed to restrain a child using the system. On the other hand, I note that in the June 8, video tape, the narrative refers to a belt within the Cradle-Safe system as a belt for restraining the child. If you do intend any belt in the system to be used for restraining the child, then various provisions of paragraph S5.4.3, Belt Restraint, will apply, depending on the design configuration of the belt assembly. In the preamble to the May 1978 proposal cited earlier in this letter, the agency expressed its continuing concern that child restraint system designs minimize the prospect of system misuse. (43 FR 21470, 21471.) If there are belts in any of your child restraint systems that you do not intend as restraints for the child, then I hope you will consider whether these additional belts unreasonably increase the risk that some users will mistake the additional belt assembly as a Standard 213 belt intended for use in restraining a child. Your Fourth Comment. Paragraph 6. This paragraph requires the CRADLE SAFE to be tested with a paragraph 7 dummy (17 lb.) for which it was not designed and which cannot be physically accommodated. We would prefer to use available 7.8 lb. and/or 14 lb. non-specified dummies. The PREMIE CRADLE falls in the car bed 'travel crib' category and does not require dynamic testing. Response. Paragraph S7.1 of Standard 213 requires testing an infant restraint system with the 6-month-old dummy specified in 49 CFR 572.25. (An infant restraint system is one that is recommended 'for use by children in a weight range that includes children weighing not more than 20 pounds.') That test device is 17.4 pounds. Because your child safety system meets the definition of infant restraint, it must be capable of meeting Standard 213 performance requirements when tested with the specified 17.4 pound dummy. If an infant restraint can not accommodate this test device, then it can not be certified as complying with Standard 213. I understand from your June 8, 1988, letter that the Cradle-Safe and One-Ride systems will accommodate the specified 17.4 pound dummy in Standard 213 testing. Further, your restraint systems must meet head excursions limits with the 17.4 pound dummy under paragraph S5.1.3.2, Rear-facing Child Restraint Systems. The dummy specified in Part 572 is based on a simple design that represents a 6-month-old infant in dimensional, mass distribution, and dynamic response characteristics. NHTSA chose to use this test dummy after conducting extensive testing and evaluation of the dummy's responses. The testing, conducted by NHTSA and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), showed that the specified dummy provided a consistent and repeatable measure of the structural integrity and confinement properties of a child restraint system, and was superior to a previous test version. (43 FR 21490, May 18, 1978, 44 FR 76527, December 27, 1979.) Before we can sanction use of another device to test an infant restraint system, the agency would have to determine that the dummy is a reliable surrogate for measuring a system's performance in an actual crash. NHTSA can not now make that statement with respect to any unspecified dummy, instrumented or non-instrumented. The agency can make this kind of finding only through a rulemaking process. Further, contrary to what you believe, infant car beds are subject to dynamic testing to ensure that the test dummy stays within the confines of the restraint system during impact. (Standard 213, S6.1.2.3.3.) While you believe you have identified some potential problems with Standard 213, I am sure that you can appreciate the need to follow established procedures when considering any change to a safety standard. Following established practices helps ensure that child restraint systems which comply with Federal standards continue to offer satisfactory crash protection for children. The agency has scheduled two public meetings this summer in order to explore the need for changes to Standard 213. I enclose a copy of the notice announcing these meetings, and invite you to participate in the forum. Based on the information you provided, it appears that you would have to modify your systems, or the agency would have to amend Standard 213 in order for you to be able to certify your child restraint system as satisfying all the applicable requirements of that Standard. Title 49 CFR Part 552, Petitions for Rulemaking, Defect, and Noncompliance Orders (copy enclosed) sets out a procedure for petitioning the agency to amend a safety standard, and you have a right to file such a petition. If NHTSA grants your petition, the agency would follow its normal rulemaking procedures to amend Standard 213. If you have some further questions or need further information on this subject, please contact Joan Tilghman of my staff at our address, or telephone (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures";

ID: aiam3181

Dear Mr. Milby: This responds to your October 8, 1979, letter and follow-up meeting i which you ask several questions about the compliance of your school buses with Standard No. 221, *School Bus Body Joint Strength*. In your letter, you ask about four separate joints and ask whether they would be required to comply with the standard.; As you know, the standard applies to any joint of a body panel tha encloses bus body space and a body structure member. An exception from the standard exists for those joints that connect maintenance access panels. In our meeting with you, we stated the agency's objection to the existing industry practice involving maintenance access panels, and further stated that the agency was contemplating rulemaking to restrict the maintenance access panel exception.; Responding directly to the four joints that you reference in you letter, you first ask whether the contact point between the headlining panel and the spring clip is a joint subject to the standard. A spring clip is entirely enclosed within a bus wall. Its function is to aid in holding the body panel in place while the rivets or adhesives are being applied. It serves no function beyond that. The agency does not believe that a spring clip is either a body structure member or a body panel enclosing occupant space. Accordingly, the joint of this clip and any other body member is not a joint subject to the standard.; In your second question, you ask whether the joint between th headlining panel and the headlining panel positioning tab is a joint subject to the standard. The positioning tab is a device that is approximately two inches long and contacts the headlining panel in two places between the bus body bows. The purpose of this tab, is to prevent buckling of the headlining panel between the two bows. The agency concludes that positioning tabs are body structure members. Therefore, if they contact a body panel at its edge, the intersection of these two components creates a joint subject to the standard.; Your third question asks whether an extruded aluminum sash assembl must comply with the standard. You state in your letter that this assembly is part of the window and, therefore, exempt from the requirements. The aluminum sash assembly to which you refer is an add-on device above the window found in your larger buses to provide more headroom. The agency concludes that this device has no function as a part of the window but merely is a trim panel that serves to cover part of the bus sidewall. Accordingly, the joint connecting this panel to the remainder of the bus structure would be required to comply with the standard.; Finally, you ask whether the joint between a positioning angle and headlining panel must comply with the joint strength requirements. A positioning angle is a body structure member that runs from bow to bow and supports the edge of the headlining panel to prevent buckling. The agency concludes that this positioning angle is a body structure member and its connection with a body panel is a joint subject to the standard's requirements.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4927

"Dear Mr. Lischynski: This responds to your letter of October 3, 199 concerning Calmar Industries' Seat Lift Kit for Ford Supercab trucks. As described by you, the 'Seat Lift Kit is an attachment to raise the rear bench seat in Ford Supercab trucks. The kit does not alter the factory seat, and uses the factory seat belts. However, the seat mounts are changed, and an extension is provided to raise the seat belt attachment point.' You asked which safety standards this kit must meet. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has issued one safety standard that applies to seats, Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, and the following safety standards that apply to safety belts: Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. All safety belts sold in the United States must be certified as complying with Standard No. 209, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as a replacement part. However, since you indicate that the kit uses the factory-installed safety belts, it does not appear that you need to be concerned with this standard. Since Standard No. 207, Standard No. 208 and Standard No. 210 apply only to new vehicles, they are called vehicle standards. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act specifies that vehicles must conform with all applicable safety standards up until the first purchase for purposes other than resale. Therefore, if the seat lift kit is installed in a truck before its sale to its first purchaser, the vehicle with the lift kit installed must conform to these standards. After the first purchase, the vehicle is no longer required by Federal law to conform with all safety standards. However, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act provides as follows: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, 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 or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . . In order to avoid violating this provision, a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business which installed the lift kit would need to ensure, by carefully comparing the lift kit and its planned installation with the requirements of relevant safety standards, that such installation enables the vehicle to continue to comply with all applicable safety standards. Violations of 108(a)(2)(A) are punishable by civil fines of up to $1,000 per violation. I note that section 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect modifications made by vehicle owners to their own vehicles. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam4306

Dear Ms. Osborne: This responds to your January 29, 1987 letter to Mr. Barry Felrice NHTSA Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, asking about our agency's position on safety belt use in small school buses (i.e., school buses with gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less). Your letter has been referred to me for reply.; In your letter, you explain that you and the Alaska School Bus Safet Committee are interested in Alaska's implementation of Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, *Pupil Transportation Safety.* You request clarification of NHTSA's position on safety belt use in small school buses because members of the committee believe that safety belts are provided on those buses only for the use of special education students. You also request information on safety belt education programs that schools could use to encourage the proper use of safety belts by student passengers in small school buses.; As you might know, NHTSA has two sets of regulations for school buses The first set, issued under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, applies to the manufacture and sale of new school buses and includes our motor vehicle safety standards for school buses. One of these safety standards is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection,* which requires the safety belts for passengers on small school buses. The second set of regulations, issued under the Highway Safety Act, includes Highway Safety Programs Standard No. 17 and relates to the use of school vehicles. Because requirements for the use of school buses are set by the states, Standard No. 17 sets forth recommendations to the states for the pupil transportation aspect of their highway safety programs. We encourage states to consider Standard No. 17's recommendations but do not insist on compliance with every aspect of the standard.; As you are aware, NHTSA does not believe that a Federal requirement fo safety belts on large school buses (GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds) is necessary because large school buses are very safe due to their mass, seating configuration and 'compartmentalized' seating positions. However, because small school buses experience greater force levels in a crash, passengers on these vehicles need the added safety benefits of the belts to mitigate against injuries and fatalities. Of course, the belts on small school buses provide safety benefits only if they are properly used. We thus recommend they be used by all pupils whenever the children are transported. This recommendation is consistent with Program Standard No. 17, which states, 'Passengers in Type II school vehicles equipped with lap belts shall be required to wear them whenever the vehicle is in motion.' (IV.C.3.d(5).); With regard to your question about belt education programs, NHTSA an the National PTA have put together a 'Safety Belt A/V Resource Kit' and a 'Children's Training Kit' as part of our 1986 safety belt awareness campaign. The kit contains material geared toward increasing safety belt use by children in passenger cars, and might be helpful in promoting belt usage in small school buses. I am sending you the resource kits by separate cover.; Further, some states have developed their own safety belt eductio programs for school children. The person in your state who might be able to provide you with more information on the programs available in Alaska is:; <<

ID: 3113yy

Mr. Gerald Farr, P. Eng.
Senior Compliance Engineer
Compliance Engineering and
Vehicle Testing
Road Safety and Motor Vehicle
Regulation Directorate
Transport Canada (ASFAAA)
Ottawa, Ontario
CANADA K1A ON5

Dear Mr. Farr:

This responds to your letter of June 19, 1991, requesting information regarding the method used to calculate the angle specified in section S4.3.1.1 of Standard No. 210.

Your first question asks whether the agency uses a three dimensional protocol or a two dimensional protocol when calculating the angle formed by the line from the seating reference point to the nearest contact point of the belt with the hardware attaching it to the anchorage. NHTSA uses a two dimensional protocol for these purposes. The agency recognizes that, as stated in your letter, this does not take into account the transverse coordinate of these two points. However, the agency does not believe that use of a two dimensional protocol diminishes the safety benefits offered by the safety belt system.

Your second question asks whether the agency has made any interpretations of the phrase "the nearest contact point of the belt with the hardware connecting it to the anchorage." The agency has never made a generally applicable interpretation of this phrase. When manufacturers have requested an interpretation for a specific design, the agency has indicated which point we would consider "the nearest contact point." If you have a specific design that concerns you, we can make a similar interpretation if you send us a diagram.

It is always a pleasure to hear from representatives of Transport Canada. We believe our cooperation has been mutually beneficial for many years. If you have further questions or need some additional information in this area, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

/ref:210 d:7/l6/9l

ID: nht91-4.51

DATE: July 16, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by Kenneth Weinstein)

TO: Gerald Farr -- P. Eng., Senior Compliance Engineer, Compliance Engineering and Vehicle Testing, Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation Directorate, Transport Canada (ASFAAA)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-19-91 from Gerald Farr to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6172)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of June 19, 1991, requesting information regarding the method used to calculate the angle specified in section S4.3.1.1 of Standard No. 210.

Your first question asks whether the agency uses a three dimensional protocol or a two dimensional protocol when calculating the angle formed by the line from the seating reference point to the nearest contact point of the belt with the hardware attaching it to the anchorage. NHTSA uses a two dimensional protocol for these purposes. The agency recognizes that, as stated in your letter, this does not take into account the transverse coordinate of these two points. However, the agency does not believe that use of a two dimensional protocol diminishes the safety benefits offered by the safety belt system.

Your second question asks whether the agency has made any interpretations of the phrase "the nearest contact point of the belt with the hardware connecting it to the anchorage." The agency has never made a generally applicable interpretation of this phrase. When manufacturers have requested an interpretation for a specific design, the agency has indicated which point we would consider "the nearest contact point." If you have a specific design that concerns you, we can make a similar interpretation if you send us a diagram.

It is always a pleasure to hear from representatives of Transport Canada. We believe our cooperation has been mutually beneficial for many years. If you have further questions or need some additional information in this area, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.