ID: nht88-4.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/08/88 EST

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

TO: WAYNE IVIE -- MANAGER, VEHICLE SUPPORT SERVICE SECTION, OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED JULY 12, 1988 FROM WAYNE IVIE, MGR., VEHICLE SUPPORT SERVICE SECTION, OREGON DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION TO NHTSA; OCC2420

TEXT: This responds to your letter seeking information about the labeling requirements in Standard No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets (49 CFR @ 571.218). You noted that Oregon recently enacted a mandatory helmet use law which adopted Standard No. 218 as the minimum standard for helmets. You correctly noted that section S5.6.1 of Standard No. 218 requires subject motorcycle helmets to be permanently and legibly labeled with specified information, including the symbol "DOT" as a certification that the helmet complie s with Standard No. 218. However, you stated that you have received reports that the labeling required by Standard No. 218 is not present on many helmets, either because it has fallen off or been removed by someone. You said that there is often no othe r identification of the manufacturer or brand name on the helmet. Accordingly, it is not possible for the owner of a helmet without the Standard 218 label present to contact a dealer or manufacturer for information about the helmet. You then asked seve ral questions about the labeling requirements set forth in Standard No. 218.

Before answering your specific questions, I would like to provide some general background information on Standard No. 218. Prior to October 3, 1988, Standard No. 218 applied only to helmets that could be placed on the size C headform. The helmet manufac turers estimated that approximately 90 percent of all motorcycle helmets were subject to Standard No. 218, because they could be placed on the size C headform. However, helmets manufactured before October 3, 1988 that could not be placed on the size C h eadform (these were typically smaller sizes of helmets) were not subject to Standard No. 218. Hence, manufacturers of helmets that could not be placed on the size C headform were not required by Standard No. 218 or any of our other regulations to label any information on these helmets. In fact, manufacturers could not label the DOT certification symbol on those helmets that were not subject to Standard No. 218. See the enclosed December 4, 1987 letter to Mr. Hoppe for more information on this subject.

We published a final rule on April 6, 1988 that extended the requirements of Standard No. 218 to all motorcycle helmet sizes (53 FR 11280). This rule became effective on October 3, 1988. Accordingly, all motorcycle No. 218 and must be labeled in accord ance with the requirements of S5.6 of that standard.

With this background, your question can be answered as follows. For the approximately 10 percent of helmets manufactured before October 3, 1988 that could not be placed on the size C headform, Standard No. 218 did not apply to them, so there was no requ irement for any information to be labeled on these helmets. Any such helmets would not display a "DOT sticker" because they were not required or permitted to display such a sticker when they were new, not because the sticker "fell off" or was removed.

However, Standard No. 218 applied to approximately 90 percent of all helmets manufactured before October 3, 1988 and applies to every motorcycle helmet manufactured on or after that date. For those helmets, S5.6.1 of Standard No. 218 requires that: "Eac h helmet shall be permanently and legibly labeled . . ." with the manufacturers name or identification, the precise model designation, the size, the month and year of manufacture, the DOT certification mark, and warning instructions. (emphasis added) In an October 16, 1973 letter to the Cycraft Co., NHTSA stated that the requirement that helmets be permanently labeled prohibits the use of labels that can be removed easily by hand without tools or chemicals.

You stated that you have heard of two reasons why helmets that originally had a DOT certification label would no longer have such a label. One of the reasons was that the affixed label was a "sticker" and it "fell off." Standard No. 218 permits manufact urers to label the required information on the helmet by means of a "sticker," provided that the label is permanent and legible and contains all the information required by S5.6. A "sticker" that falls off the helmet would not appear to be permanent wit hin the meaning of Standard No. 218, so this would be an apparent noncompliance with the standard. If you have any evidence that "stickers" are falling off helmets, please forward that information to our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance at this addre ss, and we will take appropriate actions.

The second reason that you have heard for helmets no longer having the labeling required by Standard No. 218 is that someone removed the label to paint the helmet and failed to put the label back on the helmet. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traff ic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C 1397(a)(2)(A)) prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from "knowingly render[ing] inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehic le equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard." In this case, the label on motorcycle helmets is a device or element of design installed on the helmet in compliance with Standard No. 218. If a manufacturer, distribu tor, dealer, or repair

business removed that label and failed to put it back on the helmet, then those entities would be rendering the label inoperative, in violation of Federal law. Again, if you have any evidence that violations of Federal law have occurred in your State, pl ease forward that evidence to our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance and we will take appropriate actions.

Please note that Federal law does not prohibit the helmet's owner or any other person that is not a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from removing the label from motorcycle helmets. Thus, the owner of a motorcycle helmet is permitte d to remove the label from his or her helmet for any reason without violating any provision of Federal law. The individual States are free to establish requirements for motorcycle helmets used in their State, and could prohibit an owner from removing th e label.

You suggested that the problem of missing labels could be solved if this agency were to require that the DOT symbol be embossed on or in the helmet. NHTSA considered and rejected this suggestion 15 years ago when it established Standard No. 218. In the August 20, 1973 preamble to the final rule that established FMVSS 218, we said:

With respect to providing important safety information in the form of labeling, one comment recommended that, due to possible label deterioration, both the manufacturer's identification and the helmet model designation should be permanently marked by etching, branding, stamping, embossing, or molding on the exterior of the helmet shell or on a permanently attached component so as to be visible when the helmet is in use. The NHTSA has determined that the practical effect of this recommendation is acc omplished by requiring each helmet to be permanently and legibly labeled. The method to be used to permanently and legibly affix a label for each helmet is therefore left to the discretion of the manufacturer. (38 FR 22391)

You finally asked if other jurisdictions have informed NHTSA of similar problems and sought suggestions on methods to resolve the situation where an apparently undamaged helmet would be in compliance with the standard except that it is not properly label ed. As noted above, approximately 10 percent of the motorcycle helmets manufactured before October 3, 1988 were not subject to Standard No. 218 and were not required to be labeled. To my knowledge, no other jurisdictions have informed this agency of pr oblems akin to those raised in your letter aside from more general questions about labeling.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some more information on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Enclosure

ID: aiam0982

Dear Mr. Nishibori: This is in reply to your letters of December 15, 1972, and January 3 1973, concerning paragraph S7.4.3 of Standard 208.; As I understand the question, you are positing a situation in which th occupants have correctly operated their belts, thereby permitting the engine starting system to operate, but in which the cranking of the engine by the starter motor does not start the engine and the key is returned to the 'on' position. Your question is whether the ignition can thereafter be turned from 'on' to 'start' in repeated efforts to start the engine, without interference from the interlock.; Our reply is that S7.4.3 permits a system in which the initial correc operation of the belts, followed by operation of the starting system, places the system in a 'free-start' mode so long as the ignition is not turned to 'off'. Repeated efforts to start the engine would therefore be permitted, regardless of the status of the belts.; If the ignition has been turned off and if the system is not in anothe of the 'free-start' modes allowed by S7.4.3, then the engine starting system will not be operable with an unbelted driver on the seat unless an engine compartment switch is operated pursuant to S7.4.4.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: nht87-3.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/09/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Karl F. Milde, Jr.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Karl F. Milde, Jr., P.C. Law Office RFD #8, Box 369 Union Valley Road Mahopac, NY 10541

Dear Mr. Milde:

This is in reply to your letter of October 2 1987 with reference to an electronic circuit that would automatically activate a vehicle's hazard warning system when the vehicle is proceeding slowly, or has stopped in the roadway. You have asked whether suc h a system has been proposed before, or field tested, and whether federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 would permit its installation on motor vehicles.

The traffic hazard that concerns you, especially that presented by a vehicle that has stopped in the roadway without activation of either brakes or hazard warning system, is one that is familiar to many motorists. However, it appears that in actuality mo st motorists confronted with this hazard are able to react in time to avoid a rear end collision. Accident data available to the agency indicate that crashes of this nature are relatively rare. As you know, many States require activation of the hazard wa rning system at speeds less than 40 mph on the Interstate system. NHTSA has not proposed a system of this nature, nor has it field tested one. The agency has participated in research with deceleration warning systems, a similar though not identical conce pt, and concluded that safety benefits were insufficient to propose their adoption.

We see no Federal prohibition against installation of a circuit that would activate the hazard warning system at a predetermined low rate of speed. Equipment that is not prescribed by the lighting standard is permissible as original equipment as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of equipment that Standard No. 108 does require. And modifications of vehicles in use by persons other than the vehicle owner are permissible as long as they do not render inoperative, in whole or in part, vehicle equ ipment necessary for compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Not are we aware of any State restrictions on the use of such Q system, though you should consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for a definitive answ er. Its address is 1201 Connecticut Avenue, M, Washington, DC 20036.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

October 2, 1987 CERTIFIED MAIL, RRR

Erica Z. Jones, Esq. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 400 7th Street, Southwest Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Automatic Hazard light for motor vehicles Dear Ms. Jones:

Brian O'Neill of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety suggested that I write to you and request your comments on the memorandum.

In particular, I respectfully request your answers to the following two questions:

(1) Has an automatic hazard light been proposed before? If so, has its effectiveness been field tested?

(2) Does the federal Standard 108, as presently formulated, permit the installation of an automatic hazard light on a motor vehicle?

Your comments on any prior experience with this safety device as well as your "interpretation letter" on its legality would be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours, Karl F. Milde, Jr. Enclosure cc: Mr. Brian O'Neill

MEMORANDUM

TO: N H T S A FROM: Karl F. Milde, Jr. DATE: October 1, 1987 RE: Automatic Hazard Light

I would like to alert you to a traffic hazard that has plagued me personally, many times, and which can be completely eliminated by a simple electronic circuit on a motor vehicle:

Frequently, the vehicle in which a motorist is driving - call it "vehicle 2" - is proceeding down a highway at a normal highway speed: e.g., 30-55 MPH. The vehicle of another motorist - call it "vehicle 1" - is stopped or is proceeding very slowly on the same highway ahead of vehicle 2. (There may be any number of reasons why the vehicle 1 has stopped or proceed slowly: the operator of vehicle 1 may intend to turn left after oncoming cars have passed; there may be traffic congestion ahead of vehicle 1; or vehicle 1 may be disabled with an overheated engine, flat tire or the like.) Normally, the operator of vehicle 1 will have applied the brakes so that the brake lights of vehicle 1 are illuminated, alerting the operator of vehicle 2. Often, however, th e operator of vehicle 1 does not have a need to apply the brakes because vehicle 1 has either stopped or is proceeding slowly at a steady speed. Alternatively, the operator of vehicle 1 can switch on flashing "hazard" lights, but this requires positive a ction on the operator' s part which is frequently forgotten. In the absence of any warning lights, the operator of vehicle 2 may not notice that vehicle 1 has stopped or is proceeding slowly until it is too late to prevent vehicle 2 from colliding with t he rear of vehicle 1.

There is a simple solution to this all-too-frequent traffic hazard: namely, an electronic circuit which will automatically switch on the hazard lights of a motor vehicle when this vehicle is detained (has stopped or proceeds slowly) on a highway.

With such a circuit the hazard lights will warm the drivers of vehicles approaching from the rear, even though the operator of the motor vehicle has forgotten to manually actuate the hazard light switch.

Such a circuit could not possibly cost more than a couple of dollars and, if every vehicle were so equipped, many accidents (and personal injuries) could be avoided.

As an example, I am attaching a newspaper report of a truck driver who failed to notice that traffic had stopped in front of him on the New Jersey Turnpike. The consequence was fatal. Had the cars ahead of him been flashing hazard lights, the truck drive r would surely have brought his vehicle to a safe stop.

ID: sues

Mr. James L. Sues
Freedman Seating Company
4545 West Augusta Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60651






Dear Mr. Sues:

This responds to your letter concerning the "Seat performance forward" requirements of S5.1.3 of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. I regret the delay in this response. You ask about testing a seat that is 444.5 millimeters (mm) (17 inches) wide.

Background
S5.1.3 requires seat backs to deflect in a controlled manner when specified loads are applied in the forward direction. The forces applied to the seat and the energy absorbed by the seat are given as multiples of "W." "W" represents the number of seating positions on a bench seat, and is calculated as the bench width in millimeters divided by 381 and rounded to the nearest whole number (S4.1 of Standard No. 222). For a seat that is 444.5 mm (17 inches) wide, W = 1.

The loads are applied through two loading bars. You ask about the load applied by the upper bar. The upper bar applies a forward horizontal force to the seat back until 452W Joules of energy have been absorbed in deflecting the seat back (S5.1.3.4). Under S5.1.3(a) and (b), "the seat back force/deflection curve shall fall within the zone specified in Figure 1 [of the standard]," and "seat back deflection shall not exceed 356 mm."

Discussion
You ask: "Is it permissible for the force/deflection curve of the W = 1 case to fall outside of the zone specified in Figure 1 provided 452 Joules of energy are absorbed by the seat?"

The answer is no. Figure 1 states: "Seat back force/deflection curve shall not enter shaded areas," i.e., outside of the zone specified in the figure. However, note that in order to meet the energy absorption requirement, a seat back in a school bus does not have to deflect the full 356 mm specified by S5.1.3. The energy absorption requirement will be met as long as the force applied through the upper loading bar and the resultant deflection of the seat back stay within the unshaded area shown in Figure 1 throughout the application of the force during the test, and the resultant energy "absorbed" by the seat is at least 452W Joules after the force applied by the upper bar returns to zero. The force on the upper bar and the deflection of the upper bar returning to zero force after the applied load is released are included in the calculation of applied load, and are not limited by the shaded areas shown in Figure 1. ⁽¹⁾

Your second question asks whether the applied force or the resultant deflection is "the more important parameter." I note that nowhere in Standard No. 222 is there language placing more importance on either the applied force or the resultant deflection. Therefore, both parameters must be satisfied.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:222
d.9/5/00

---

1. We also note that only the "force applied" and the resultant seat back deflection are restricted in Standard No. 222. In a July 30, 1976 interpretation letter to Thomas Built Buses Inc. (copy enclosed), NHTSA noted that any recoil energy returned to the upper loading bar by the seat is not considered to be part of the absorbed energy. Specifically, the letter stated that seats have to "absorb" (i.e., receive without recoil) a specific amount of energy to provide adequate protection: "This value is represented by the amount of energy that is not returned to the loading bar as it is withdrawn. Described graphically, the area that represents returned energy under the seat back force/deflection curve must be subtracted from the entire area that lies under the curve in order to calculate the energy 'absorbed' by the seat back."

ID: nht90-2.61

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/31/90

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: VIRVE AIROLA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 01/26/72 FROM RICHARD B. DYSON -- ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA TO K. NAKAJIMA -- TOYOTA; LETTER AND BROCHURE DATED 04/14/89 FROM VIRVE AIROLA OF OY TUPPI AB TO NHTSA CONCERNING ITS FINLAND COMPANY'S RANGE OF PLASTIC TUBES AND HOSE S PARTICULAR ITS AIR BRAKE TUBING

TEXT: This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 106, Brake Hoses. We understand that you are interested in supplying your products to a vehicle manufacturer (Saab-Scania), who specifies that you must "register" with this agency as a brake hose manufacturer. You request information that would enable you to meet this product specification. I regret the delay in responding.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers Federal regulations for the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment (including brake hoses) sold in or imported i nto this country. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. This process requires eac h manufacturer to determine in the exercise of due care that its products meet all applicable requirements. NHTSA tests vehicles and equipment sold to consumers for compliance with the FMVSS's and investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a noncompliance or safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge. (Note that this responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which your hoses are installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.) Any manufacturer which fails to provide notification of or remedy for a noncompliance or defect may be subject to a civil pen alty of up to $ 1,000 per violation.

Saab-Scania's product specification appears to relate to the labeling requirements of Standard No. 106. Under S7.2.1(b) of Standard No. 106, air brake hose manufacturers must label their hose with a designation (consisting of block capital letters, nume rals or a symbol) that identifies the manufacturer of the hose. The designation assists NHTSA in identifying the manufacturers of noncomplying or defective brake

hoses. There is no NHTSA application form for the designation; instead, the manufacturer simply files the designation in writing with NHTSA's Crash Avoidance Division, at the address provided in S7.2.1(b) of the standard.

From your letter, it appears that Saab-Scania also specifies that your brake hoses must meet all applicable FMVSS's. Standard No. 106 applies to new motor vehicles and to "brake hoses" (which include plastic tubing), brake hose end fittings, and brake h ose assemblies. The standard specifies labeling and performance requirements for these products to reduce the likelihood of brake system failure from ruptures in the brake hose or brake hose assembly. New brake hoses, end fittings and assemblies must m eet these requirements to be sold in or imported into this country. If they don't comply, the manufacturers are subject to civil penalties of $ 1000 per violation, and the notification and remedy provisions of the Safety Act. I have enclosed a copy of the standard for your information, photocopied from the October 1, 1989 edition of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR @ 571.106).

In addition to the requirements described above, please note that your manufacture of brake hoses may also be affected by NHTSA's longstanding interpretation of our regulation on manufacturer identification (49 CFR Part 566; copy enclosed), if Saab-Scani a sells vehicles equipped with your brake hoses in this country. This rule requires a manufacturer of equipment to which an FMVSS applies ("covered equipment" -- e.g., brake hoses) to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the items of equ ipment it manufacturers to NHTSA separately from the vehicle manufacturer to which the equipment manufacturer supplies its products. NHTSA has interpreted this regulation to require the information from foreign manufacturers of covered equipment supplyi ng their products to a foreign vehicle manufacturer selling its vehicles in the United States. (Enclosed is a copy of the agency's January 26, 1972 letter to Mr. Nakajima of Toyota Motor Company on this issue.)

Please note that Oy Toppi is not required to designate an agent for service of process under 49 CFR Part 551 (Subpart D), if Oy Toppi supplies its products only to a foreign vehicle manufacturer. This is the case even if the foreign vehicle manufacturer installs Oy Toppi's products on vehicles that will be sold in the United States. However, please keep in mind that Oy Toppi must designate an agent under Part 551 if Oy Toppi decides to offer its equipment for importation into the United States. I hav e enclosed a copy of this regulation for your information.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have further questions.

ENCLOSURES

ID: 1982-2.32

DATE: 08/06/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Thomas Built Buses Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

August 6, 1982

Mr. James Tydings Specifications Engineer Thomas Built Buses Inc. 1408 Courtesy Road P.O. Box 2450 High Point, NC 27261

Dear Mr. Tydings:

This responds to your June 28, 1982, letter asking several questions about the remanufacture of school buses using old chassis and new bodies.

In general, the use of a new body on an old chassis does not constitute the manufacture of a new motor vehicle. Accordingly, your responsibility as the individual making this modification would simply be to make sure that you do not render inoperative the compliance of the pre-existing vehicle with any of the safety standards with which it complied when it was manufactured and with which it complies at the time of your modifications, i.e., the new body (and the chassis) would have to comply with the same standards with which the old body complied (15 U.S.C. 1397).

In your first hypothetical, you would use a pre-April 1, 1977 chassis. In this case the body that you would use would not have to comply with the school bus safety standards that became effective on that date. Seat spacing could be determined by the customer.

Secondly, you would use a post-April 1, 1977 chassis. In this case the vehicle would be required to continue to comply with those standards applicable to it at the time of its manufacture, which includes the school bus safety standards. Seat spacing would be limited in accordance with Standard No. 222.

Your third and fourth hypotheticals are the same as the two noted above except that the buses involved are not school buses. Once again, the general rule prevails that the buses need not comply with new motor vehicle safety standards, but simply must not have their previous compliance with standards rendered inoperative by you.

Finally, as you indicated in your letter, you should transfer the certification label from the old vehicle to the modified vehicle if you are replacing the vehicle's body.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

June 28, 1982

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

Dear Mr. Tilton,

Pursuant to our recent phone conversation regarding the mounting of new bus bodies upon old chassis, I would appreciate your counsel on this matter.

You expressed some surprise that requests are being received for new bodies on old chassis which is the reverse of the usual procedure of a new chassis under an old body. Your office in the past has ruled in those cases that the body must meet the safety regulation level of the chassis.

It is the feeling here that the present economic conditions of essential tight money makes this new combination feasible.

Since I could not find any references in the certification part of the regulations to serve as a guide prompted my phone call to you.

Following is a list of questions which will illustrate some combinations of various situations that may arise in the mounting of the new body.

NOTE: All chassis to be reconditioned. All chassis originally certified as school buses.

1. Conditions: Chassis - Pre-April 1, 1977 Body - 1982 - Make of body not the same as the original body.

Seats - Pre-1977 Seats - Spacing to be customer option.

2. Chassis - Post April 1, 1977 Body - 1982 Seats - Seats to be of certifiable of the year of the chassis.

Other Federal Regulations - Equal to or exceeding the Federal Regulations of the year of the chassis.

Bus Use - A school bus.

3. Same as No. 1, except: Body would be a non-school bus body.

Bus Use - Only as non-school bus.

4. Same as No. 2, except: Body would be a non-school bus body.

Bus Use - Only as non-school bus.

Per our conversation, the original certification is to be installed in the new body in the approved location.

We trust that the example conditions outlined are in accordance with the Federal Safety Standard.

Should you have any questions, relative to the above, kindly contact the writer.

Sincerely,

THOMAS BUILT BUSES, INC.

James Tydings, Specifications Engineer

JT/jf

ID: nht90-4.58

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: November 9, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: William Shapiro -- Manager, Regulations and Compliance, Volvo Cars of North America

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-27-90 from W. Shapiro to P.J. Rice

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages (49 CFR S571.210). More specifically, you asked about the anchorage location requirements for the upper torso portion of Type 2 safety belts (i.e., la p/shoulder belts), set forth in S4.3.2 of Standard No. 210. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain those regulatory requirements for you.

Before discussing the substantive issues raised in your letter, I would like to respond to your request that NHTSA not publicly release the design drawings for this proposed new safety belt design. We hereby grant your request. We will make available t o the public your incoming letter and this response, but not the design drawings.

Your letter stated that Volvo is designing lap/shoulder belts for the rear seating positions of proposed future vehicles. The retractor for the upper end of the shoulder belt portion of these safety belts would be located in the seat back, and not withi n the acceptable anchorage location zone shown in Figure 1 of Standard No. 210. However, the shoulder belt webbing would pass through a device on the top of the seat back that you called a "belt anchor" on the way to the retractor. This "belt anchor" w ould bear most of the loads imposed on the shoulder belts from the forward direction, and would redirect the shoulder belt webbing downward to the retractor. This function is similar to that performed by D-rings for many current designs of manual lap/sh oulder safety belts. The "belt anchor" would be within the acceptable anchorage location zone shown in Figure 1 of Standard No. 210. You asked if this design would comply with the requirements of S4.3.2 of Standard No. 210. The answer to your question is yes.

Both the "belt anchor" and the retractor would be "anchorages" within the meaning of S3 of Standard No. 210 for the shoulder belt, because both would transfer belt loads to the vehicle structure. However, S4.3.2 does not require that both these anchorag es comply with the anchorage location requirements. Instead, S4.3.2 provides that, "the seat belt anchorage for the upper end of the upper torso restraint shall be located within the acceptable range shown in Figure 1." NHTSA has interpreted this langu age as follows. If there is a single "anchorage" for the upper end of the shoulder belt, that single "anchorage" must comply with the anchorage location requirements. If there is more than one "anchorage" for the upper end of the shoulder belt, the upp ermost of these multiple anchorages must comply with the anchorage location requirements.

I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you have any further questions or need some additional information on this subject.

ID: 2744y

Mr. William Shapiro
Manager, Regulations and Compliance
Volvo Cars of North America
Rockleigh, NJ 07647

Dear Mr. Shapiro:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages (49 CFR 571.210). More specifically, you asked about the anchorage location requirements for the upper torso portion of Type 2 safety belts (i.e., lap/shoulder belts), set forth in S4.3.2 of Standard No. 210. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain those regulatory requirements for you.

Before discussing the substantive issues raised in your letter, I would like to respond to your request that NHTSA not publicly release the design drawings for this proposed new safety belt design. We hereby grant your request. We will make available to the public your incoming letter and this response, but not the design drawings.

Your letter stated that Volvo is designing lap/shoulder belts for the rear seating positions of proposed future vehicles. The retractor for the upper end of the shoulder belt portion of these safety belts would be located in the seat back, and not within the acceptable anchorage location zone shown in Figure 1 of Standard No. 210. However, the shoulder belt webbing would pass through a device on the top of the seat back that you called a "belt anchor" on the way to the retractor. This "belt anchor" would bear most of the loads imposed on the shoulder belts from the forward direction, and would redirect the shoulder belt webbing downward to the retractor. This function is similar to that performed by D-rings for many current designs of manual lap/shoulder safety belts. The "belt anchor" would be within the acceptable anchorage location zone shown in Figure 1 of Standard No. 210. You asked if this design would comply with the requirements of S4.3.2 of Standard No. 210. The answer to your question is yes.

Both the "belt anchor" and the retractor would be "anchorages" within the meaning of S3 of Standard No. 210 for the shoulder belt, because both would transfer belt loads to the vehicle structure. However, S4.3.2 does not require that both these anchorages comply with the anchorage location requirements. Instead, S4.3.2 provides that, "the seat belt anchorage for the upper end of the upper torso restraint shall be located within the acceptable range shown in Figure 1." NHTSA has interpreted this language as follows. If there is a single "anchorage" for the upper end of the shoulder belt, that single "anchorage" must comply with the anchorage location requirements. If there is more than one "anchorage" for the upper end of the shoulder belt, the uppermost of these multiple anchorages must comply with the anchorage location requirements.

I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you have any further questions or need some additional information on this subject.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:2l0 d:ll/9/90

ID: Spelcast5635

Mr. Derek Fletcher
Snug Seat
12801 E. Independence Blvd.
PO Box 1739
Matthews, NC 28106

Dear Mr. Fletcher:

This responds to your e-mail letter and phone conversation with Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff, in which you requested a temporary exemption from the child restraint anchorage system requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child restraint systems. The agency does not have authority to grant exemptions to equipment manufacturers. However, in this limited instance, we will exercise our discretion not to institute enforcement proceedings with respect to the Spelcast special needs child restraint system (CRS).

In your letter, you explained that the Spelcast is specifically designed to safely transport children in hip spica casts or with other lower extremity casting. You stated that typically, a child only uses the Spelcast for a period of 6 to 8 weeks while in a cast. According to your letter, hospitals temporarily loan the Spelcast to individuals with children in casts. You describe the loans as being administered by trained hospital staff, who provide instruction on the restraints installation and use.

Under FMVSS No. 213, all CRSs (except harnesses, car beds, and belt-positioning seats) manufactured on or after September 1, 2002, must be equipped with a means of attaching to a vehicles child restraint anchorage system [1] . This requirement, along with vehicle anchorage requirements, improves the compatibility of vehicle seats and CRSs and provides a universal system for installing CRSs. Increasing the ease of installation reduces the instances of incorrectly installed restraints. Improved compatibility and proper installation increase the effectiveness of a CRS in preventing death or injury.

You indicated that the Spelcast is currently not offered for sale because it does not meet the LATCH requirements of FMVSS No. 213. However, you stated that when the Spelcast was sold, it was primarily sold to hospitals and child passenger safety agencies and was not available through any retail outlet. You stated that there are currently no other CRSs available that accommodate the needs of children in casts and that the only alternative is ambulance transport.

As a CRS, the Spelcast must meet all applicable provisions of FMVSS No. 213, including those for the child restraint anchorage system attachments. When a Federal motor vehicle safety standard contains a requirement applicable to a product, Federal law prohibits any person from manufacturing, selling, or importing a new product that does not comply with that requirement. See, 49 U.S.C. 30112. The Federal law governing our agency does not explicitly provide for exempting manufacturers of equipment items, such as CRSs, from the application of the standards.

However, we believe that flexibility is called for to accommodate the special medical needs of the individuals who rely on your product. The Spelcast provides a transportation option for a small population that has very limited alternatives. One of the objectives of the LATCH requirements is to minimize improper installation of CRSs. Because of the distribution methods for the Spelcast, users receive personal instruction from qualified staff. This instruction, combined with the limited and controlled distribution of the child restraint, reduces the chance that a Spelcast will be improperly installed. However, to continue to ensure that only properly instructed individuals would use these seats and to prevent the seats general use, a system is needed to ensure that a loaned seat is returned to the hospital or agency once a child can be accommodated by a CRS certified to all the requirements of FMVSS No. 213.

In your phone conversation, you explained that the seat is being redesigned in cooperation with another CRS manufacturer to comply with the LATCH requirements, but that the availability of the new seat is still about 8 months away. Based on this and other information mentioned in this letter, we will exercise our discretion not to enforce the child restraint anchorage system requirements of FMVSS No. 213 against the Spelcast for a period of 8 months from the date of this letter. This will provide an alternative to ambulance transport until the redesigned seat is available. Note that this determination applies only to the child restraint anchorage provisions of FMVSS No. 213 and that the Spelcast must still comply with all other relevant portions of the standard.

I hope that this letter resolves your problem. If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:213
d.10/1/03





---

[1] This is commonly referred to as the LATCH (lower anchors and tether for children) requirement.

ID: aiam3099

Dear Mr. Reynolds:This responds to your July 27, 1979, letter whic asked whether any Federal law or regulations would prohibit the DeKalb County School System from converting the gasoline fuel systems in its school buses to propane fuel or dual propane- gasoline fuel systems. You specified that you would like this question answered both with respect to school buses manufactured in accordance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301- 75 and with respect to school buses manufactured before that standard's effective date. You also asked which persons may perform the conversions. As explained below, the laws administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) neither prohibit such a conversion of a school bus, regardless of whether it was initially manufactured in compliance with Safety Standard No. 301-75, nor specify which persons may perform such conversions.; Safety Standard No. 301- 75, *Fuel System Integrity*, promulgated b this agency pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974 ('the Act') specifies performance requirements for the fuel systems of new motor vehicles, including school buses, which use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F. (e.g., gasoline).; New vehicles, such as school buses, that have not yet been sold an delivered to a purchaser (here the school district) for purposes other than resale and that have been manufactured in compliance with Safety Standard No. 301-75 may be converted to propane and dual propane/gasoline systems. However, any person or entity, other than the purchaser, such as a manufacturer, dealer, or automobile repair business, who performs the conversion would be considered an alterer under NHTSA regulations.; An alterer is required to attach an additional label to the vehicl certifying that the vehicle, as altered, still complies with all applicable safety standards (49 CFR 567.7). Upon conversion of a new gasoline-powered school bus to a propane-powered school bus, Safety Standard No. 301-75 would cease to apply since propane has a boiling point below 32 degrees F. and the standard applies only to vehicles that use fuel with a higher boiling point. Therefore, the alterer would not be required to certify the school bus's continuing compliance with Safety Standard No. 301-75. However, upon conversion of a new gasoline-powered school bus to a dual powered school bus, Safety Standard No. 301-75 would remain applicable and the alterer would be required to certify the vehicle's continued compliance with that standard and all other applicable safety standards.; The installer of a propane or dual propane/gasoline system in a ne vehicle would be responsible for any safety related defects arising from the method of installation. The manufacturer of the system would be responsible for any safety related defects in the system itself. Thus, if a new school bus were found to contain a safety related defect following the addition of a new fuel system the installer or manufacturer, respectively, would be required to notify vehicle owners of any defects and to remedy these defects. (Sections 151 *et. seq.* of the Act, see enclosure). Also, please note if a propane or a dual propane/gasoline system were installed in a used school bus and was later found to contain any safety related defects, the manufacturer of the system would be responsible for notifying vehicle owners of the defect and for remedying them.; Used vehicles manufactured in accordance with Safety Standard No 301-75, as well as used vehicles manufactured before the effective date of that standard, may also be converted. Nothing in the Act prohibits a vehicle owner from modifying his own vehicles. Moreover, no law administered by the NHTSA prohibits other persons or entities such as manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair business from modifying used vehicles.; This means that the DeKalb County School District would not b prohibited from converting its gasoline- powered buses, regardless of their date of manufacture, to propane or to dual-powered buses. It also means that if the school district sought to have the conversion done by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business, none of these persons or entities would be prohibited from doing the work.; However, such persons and entities could be subject to sectio 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act, if they converted used vehicles originally manufactured in compliance with Safety Standard No. 301-75. The section provides in relevant part that:; >>>No manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repai 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 ....<<<; There is no liability under section 108(a)(2)(A) in connection wit Safety Standard No. 301-75, if one of the listed persons or entities converts a used gasoline-powered vehicle into a propane powered vehicle. Modification of the safety systems in a vehicle that is being converted from one vehicle type to another does not violate section 108(a)(2)(A) so long as the modified systems comply with the safety standards that would have been applicable to the vehicle had it been originally manufactured as the vehicle type to which it is being converted. For example, in converting a used gasoline-powered school bus (originally manufactured in compliance with Safety Standard No. 301-75) to a propane-powered school bus, the converter could not violate section 108(a)(2)(A) with respect to Safety Standard No. 301-75, since this standard, as noted earlier, does not apply to propane-powered school buses.; However, there could be liability under this section in connection wit Safety Standard No. 301-75 if, for example, one of the listed persons or entities converted a used gasoline- powered school bus (originally manufactured in compliance with Safety Standard No. 301-75) into a dual-powered school bus. In this situation, Safety Standard No. 301-75 would continue to apply to the school bus after the conversion. Thus, if in performing the conversion one of the compliance with Standard No. 301-75 while adding the propane system, that person or entity would have violated section 108(a)(2)(A).; I hope that you will find this response helpful. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel