ID: aiam5531

"Dear Mr. Kelly: This responds to your letter of February 2, 1995 requesting permission or a waiver from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to allow one of your clients, a 'corporation specializing in modification of vehicles for handicapped and disabled citizens,' to modify a vehicle for one of its customers. You explained that the customer 'suffers from a neuromuscular disorder which renders her partially paralyzed.' You further explained that '(s)he cannot turn the factory steering wheel because it is too thick for her to hold and too wide for her to see the gauges.' You described previous modifications done for this customer as follows: the steering box on a stock vehicle (would be) removed and the steering mechanism would be adjusted at a machine shop to a low effort or zero effort steering gear. From this point after-market steering wheels and column adapter kits would be installed to accept this new steering wheel. You explained that your client was concerned that they would no longer be permitted to make such modifications as removal of the original steering wheel also results in removal of the air bag. During an April 4, 1995 phone call with Mary Versailles of my staff you explained that the vehicle is also equipped with a wheelchair lift and that the floor of the vehicle has been lowered. As explained in this letter, replacement of the steering wheel is permitted provided that a lap/shoulder safety belt is installed at the driver's position. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (49 USC 30111). Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards before they can be offered for sale (49 USC 30112). If a certified vehicle is modified, other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components, prior to its first retail sale, the person making the modification is an alterer and is required to certify that, as altered the vehicle continues to conform to all applicable safety standards (49 CFR 567.7). After the first retail sale, there is one limit on modifications made to vehicles. 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 safety standard (49 USC 30122). In general, the 'make inoperative' prohibition would require a business which modifies motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard. NHTSA has exercised its authority to issue Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). Standard No. 208 requires light trucks and vans manufactured on or after September 1, 1991 to be capable of providing occupant crash protection to front seat occupants when the vehicle is crash tested at 30 miles per hour (mph) into a concrete barrier. A vehicle that provides this crash protection will increase the safety of vehicle occupants. The air bag installed in the customer's vehicle is one means of complying with this requirement. As a result of this new requirement, this agency received a number of phone calls and letters, from both van converters and individuals suggesting that the new light truck and van crash testing requirement will, in effect, prohibit van converters from modifying vehicles to accommodate the special needs of persons in wheelchairs. The agency also received a petition asking for an amendment to the light truck and van crash test requirement in Standard No. 208 to address this problem. As a result on that petition, on March 2, 1993, this agency amended Standard No. 208 to allow manufacturers of light trucks and vans an alternative to complying with the existing requirement (58 FR 11975). Under the amendment, 'vehicles manufactured for operation by persons with disabilities' are excluded from the light truck and van automatic crash protection requirement. Instead, these vehicles must be equipped with a Type 2 manual belt (integrated lap and shoulder belt) or Type 2A manual belt (non-integrated lap and shoulder belt) at the front outboard seating positions. A 'vehicle manufactured for operation by persons with disabilities' is defined as vehicles that incorporate a level change device (e.g., a wheelchair lift or a ramp) for onloading or offloading an occupant in a wheelchair, an interior element of design intended to provide the vertical clearance necessary to permit a person in a wheelchair to move between the lift or ramp and the driver's position or to occupy that position, and either an adaptive control or special driver seating accommodation to enable persons who have limited use of their arms or legs to operate a vehicle. For purposes of this definition, special driver seating accommodations include a driver's seat easily removable with means installed for that purpose or with simple tools, or a driver's seat with extended adjustment capability to allow a person to easily transfer from a wheelchair to the driver's seat. Based on the information you provided, the customer's van would come within this definition. Therefore, if your client would be considered an alterer, it may certify that, with the air bag removed, the vehicle continues to conform to all applicable safety standards, provided that the safety belts are not removed. If the modification is done after the first retail sale, removal of the air bag would not violate the 'make inoperative' prohibition, provided that the safety belts are not removed. I hope this information has been helpful. If you have other questions or need some additional information, please contact Mary Versailles at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: nht87-1.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/20/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Martin V. Chauvin

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your two letters to this agency concerning safety belts on school buses. Your October 24, 1986 letter to this office asked for clarification of a Federal Register notice issued by NHTSA in 1976 which stated that seats on large school bu ses are strong enough to absorb the seat belt loads set for belts on smaller school buses. Your October 29, 1986 letter to NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, which has been referred to my office for reply, concerned manufacturers' test data for head form impact requirements of Standards No. 222 and No. 208. I apologize for the delay in responding to your letters.

Your first letter pertained to retrofitting safety belts on large school buses meeting Standard No. 222. You referred to a 1976 Federal Register notice in which NHTSA said that seats on large school buses that meet Standard No. 222 are strong enough to absorb safety belt loads. You explained that school bus manufacturers disagree with those statements and have indicated that they are not true for most seats on large school buses manufactured since 1977. Your question asked whether manufacturers are r equired to equip large school buses with seats that are strong enough to meet the load requirements set for safety belts in small school buses.

The answer to your question is no. Seats installed on large school buses must meet their own strength requirements set by Standard No. 222. Manufacturers are not required to install seats on large school buses that are capable of meeting the load requi rements set for safety belts on small school buses.

For your information, I am enclosing a May 11, 1978 letter from former Chief Counsel Joseph Levin to Dr. Arthur Yeager, in which we discuss the statement made in Notice 5 of Docket 73-3 you referenced in your letter. Mr. Levin's letter explains that NHT SA had proposed safety belt requirements for large school buses that would have set lower belt load requirements than those currently applicable to small school buses. (In addition, the proposed seat strength requirement was higher than that adopted in Standard No. 222.) Mr. Levin explains that the statement made in Notice 5 was referring to the safety belt requirements formerly proposed for the seats on large school buses, which the seats would be capable of withstanding. It did not mean to imply tha t the seats on large school buses were strong enough to be retrofitted with safety belts and meet the requirements applicable to belts on small school buses.

We believe that manufacturers can design the seats on large school buses to accommodate safety belts which meet the load requirements applicable to belts on the smaller school buses. As you know, NHTSA proposed an amendment to Standard No. 222 which wou ld set such a strength requirement for safety belts voluntarily installed on new large school buses, to ensure that proper belt installations are made. If adopted, the amendment would supersede any conflicting statements in the Yeager letter concerning the load requirements applicable to new large school buses.

In your second letter, you explained that New York enacted a law which sets certain head form impact requirements for school buses. You would like to obtain information from manufacturers regarding the values they obtained for the actual axial accelerat ion of the head form pursuant to Standards No. 208 and No. 222. You asked whether motor vehicle manufacturers are required to submit such test data to NHTSA.

The answer to your question is no. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer of motor vehicles or items or motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its pr oducts meet all applicable motor vehicle safety standards. This process requires each manufacturer to exercise due care in selecting and conducting the mathematical calculations, computer simulations or testing that form the basis for that certification . That data is retained by the manufacturer, and is not submitted to NHTSA for approval. NHTSA can request manufacturers to produce records to show how it determined compliance if a question should arise as to the compliance of a particular product wit h NHTSA requirements.

Please note that the New York legislation you mentioned raises an important preemption issue. Federal preemption of State motor vehicle safety standards is governed by @103(d) of the Vehicle Safety Act, which states:

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard under this subchapter 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 moto r 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 the Federal Government or the government of 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 of performance than that requi red to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard. We understand that New York's law requires passenger safety belts and additional seat padding on all new school buses manufactured for use in New York. The New York law applies to the same a spect of performance (i.e., passenger crash protection) as Standard No. 222 but specifies performance requirements that are not identical to the Federal standard. In requiring the belts and the additional padding, the New York law is specifying higher r equirements than those in the FMVSS. Section 103(d) preempts higher state requirements except to the extent that they apply to vehicles procured for the State's use. Therefore, the New York law is preempted under the first sentence of @103(d) to the ex tent that the law requires all school buses manufactured for use in New York to be equipped with belts and extra padding. The law is not preempted to the extent that it requires belts and additional padding for public school buses. The phrase "vehicles procured for [the State's] own use" includes public school buses and school buses operated and owned by a private contractor under contract to transport children to and from public school.

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

ENC.

STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

October 24, 1986

Erika Z. Jones Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Ms. Jones:

The New York State Department of Transportation has been designated by New York statute as the agency responsible for promulgating regulations dealing with seat belts on school buses. In pursuing this assignment, we have been presented with a problem th at needs clarification from your office.

Enclosed are two documents that refer to standards being considered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). One document is a copy of a page (4017) of the Federal Register. Vol. 41-No. 19-Wednesday, January 28, 1976 (the specific date is somewhat blurred but it is definitely January 20 something 1976). The second document is identified as "Preamble to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222" and is dated October 26, 1976. The question we need clarification on is addressed in bot h documents.

We have been provided an interpretation of these documents (underlined or otherwise marked to identify particular item in question) that indicates that school buses, since 1977 have been required to provide seats that meet safety standard 222 and as such must be capable of accomodating seat belts. School bus body manufacturers advise us that this is not true. In fact, the manufacturers advise us that better than 95 percent of the buses manufacturered since 1977 would not be equipped with seats that ca n accomodate seat belts.

We are looking to you to help clarify this matter. In essence, we want to know if manufacturers are required to equip school buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds with seats that can accomodate seat belts (for example, meet the federal standards that have been spelled out for buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less).

We are faced with some severe time constraints so we would appreciate a response at your earliest possible convenience.

Thank for your help.

MARTIN V. CHAUVIN, Chief Carrier Safety Bureau

ENCLS.

STATE OF NEW YORK

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

October 29, 1986 William, Smith Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Smith:

Enclosed is a copy of a bill that was enacted into law on July 30, 1986 and sets certain requirements for seat belts and seat back padding for school buses.

Section 142 of the New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law provides a broad definition of school bus and applies to passenger cars if used by a school district or by others on a for hire basis to transport pupils. This law specifies that these school bus es (including passenger cars) must meet the head form impact requirement as spelled out in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS), 49 CFR Section 571.222 except the impact requirement shall not exceed 800 whereas the federal standard allows 1000.

We are interested in finding out if the automobile manufacturers are required to provide any specific test data that would indicate the actual axial acceleration of the head form as described in FMVSS Section 571.222, S5.3 Impact zone requirements or Sec tion 571.208, S6 Injury criteria. We are trying to determine if the information we are seeking is already available at one central point or if we must deal directly with each manufacturer individually.

Any assistance you can provide in helping us deal with this issue would be greatly appreciated.

MARTIN V. CHAUVIN, Chief Carrier Safety Bureau

STATE OF NEW YORK

10596 -- B

R. R. 872

IN ASSEMBLY

March 25, 1986

Introduced by M. of A. WEINSTEIN, GRABER, PASSANNANTE, LASHER, BRODSKY, SCHMIDT -- Multi-Sponsored by -- M. of A. BIANCHI, BURROWS, CONNELLY, EVE, HALPIN, HARENBERG, LIPSCHUTZ, NEWBURGER, VITALIANO -- read once and referred to the Committee on Transpo rtation -- reported and referred to the Committee on Rules -- Rules Committee discharged, bill amended, ordered reprinted as amended and recommitted to the Committee on Rules -- amended on the special order of third reading, ordered reprinted as amended, retaining its place on the special order of third reading

AN ACT to amend the vehicle and traffic law and the education law, in relation to seat safety belts for school buses

The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows: Section 1. Subdivision five of section three hundred eighty-three of the vehicle and traffic law is renumbered subdivision six and a new subdivision five is added to read as follows:

5. (a) Passenger seat safety belts for school buses. Every school bus, as defined in section one hundred forty-two of this chapter, manufactured for use in this state on and after July first, nineteen hundred eighty-seven, shall be designed so that all passenger seats on such vehicle are equipped with seat safety belts and increased seat back padding on passenger seats of a type and specification as approved by the commissioner of transportation through the adoption of rules and regulations. Such rules and regulations shall provide that when any contactable surface of the school bus, as specified in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 49 CFR Section 571.222, is impacted from any direction at twenty-two feet per second by the head form, the axial acceleration at the center of gravity of the head form shall be such that the head form impact requirement shall not exceed eight hundred.

(b) Passenger seat safety belts for existing school buses. Any school bus as defined in section one hundred forty-two of this chapter, which is scheduled for retrofitting pursuant to action by a board of education or board of trustees under section t hirty-six hundred thirty-five-a of the education law shall be retrofitted so that all passenger seats on such vehicles are equipped with seat safety belts and additional padding of a type and specification as approved by the commissioner of transportatio n through the adoption of rules and regulations. Such rules and regulations shall provide that when any contactable surface of the school bus as specified in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, 49CFR Section 571.222 is impacted from any direction at twenty-two feet per second by the head form, the axial acceleration at the center of gravity of the head form shall be such that the head form impact requirement shall not exceed eight hundred. Furthermore, the commissioner shall have the power thro ugh rules and regulations to exempt certain design school buses from retrofitting in granting such exemptions the commissioner shall consider safety factors, structural integrity of the school buses and any other items deemed necessary to preserve the sa fety and welfare of the school bus passengers. Provided further however that the commissioner of transportation shall not authorize retrofitting of any school bus manufactured prior to April first, nineteen hundred seventy-seven.

@ 2. Paragraph b of subdivision seven of section thirty-six hundred two of the eduction law, as amended by chapter fifty-three of the laws of nineteen hundred eighty-five, is amended to read as follows:

b. For the purposes of this apportionment, approved transportation expense shall be the actual expenditure incurred by a school district and approved by the commissioner (i) for those items for which an allowance would be provided under section thirt y-six hundred twenty-seven for the transportation of pupils as defined in section thirty-six hundred twenty-one if the district were eligible for transportation quota state aid under part two of this article, and (ii) for the transportation required or a uthorized pursuant to article eighty-nine, and (iii) for regional or joint transportation systems and (iv) for computerized bus routing services, (v) for the transportation of any pupil during the school day to and from programs at a board of cooperative educational services or to or from approved shared programs at other school districts, which programs may lead to a diploma or a high school equivalency diploma or to or from occupational education programs operated within the district, (vi) for the pur chase of two-way radios to be used on old and new school buses, and (vii) for the purchase of stop-arms as defined by subdivision twenty of section two of this chapter, to be used on old and new school buses and (viii) for the purchase and installation o f seat safety belts on school buses in accordance with the provisions of section thirty-six hundred thirty-five-a of this chapter. Approved transportation expense shall include employers social security contributions for transportation personnel. Approv ed transportation expense shall also include all salaries and retirement benefits related to transportation, except salaries and retirement benefits for assistant drivers on buses transporting nonhandicapped pupils, and health, life and other insurance p remiums for transportation personnel for whom salaries are approved, premiums for collision and other insurance coverage, uniforms, and equipment and other expenses as approved pursuant to regulations of the commissioner.

@ 3. Section thirty-eight hundred thirteen of such law is amended by adding a new subdivision four to read as follows. (Illegible Lines)

(Illegible Words) Safety belt usage. 1. A board of education or board of trustees may in its discretion, following a public hearing for the purpose of determining whether a resolution shall be adopted, provide for the use of seat safety belts on such s chool buses, in accordance with regulations and standards established by the commissioner under subdivision one of section thirty-six hundred twenty-three of this chapter.

2. Such public hearing, conducted upon reasonable notice, shall be held to consider: (a) whether the district shall install seat safety belts on buses purchased and/or contracted for prior to the effective date of this section and require their use; (b) when such installation shall be provided, and (c) whether use of seat safety belts shall be required on all school buses within the district so equipped after a date to be determined by the board of education or board of trustees.

3. Such hearings shall consider the effect of seat safety belts installation on the total number of students that can be transported on such buses.

4. Within twenty days after the public hearing, the board of education or board of trustees shall, by resolution, determine whether to require installation and use of seat safety belts on some or all school buses.

5. This section shall apply only to vehicles owned or leased by school districts and nonpublic schools, and to vehicles used to perform contracts with such school districts and nonpublic schools for the purpose of transporting school children for hir e.

6. Nothing in this section shall be construed to impose a duty upon boards of (Illegible Word) or boards of trustees to provide seat safety belts on school buses purchased or contracted for prior to the effective date of this section, nor shall any b oard of education or board of trustees be held liable for failure to provide seat safety belts pursuant to this section. A school board member or trustee shall have immunity from any (Illegible Words) liability that might otherwise be incurred or impose d is a result of the provisions of the section provided that such person (Illegible Words) in good faith. For the purpose of any proceeding, civil (Illegible Words) the good faith of any such person shall be presumed.

7. The premissions of this section shall not be apply to school districts which are using safety belts on school buses or have instilled or have (Illegible Word) for the installation of seat safety belts prior to the effective date of this section. @ 8. (Illegible Word) on eof section thirty-six hundred twenty-three of (Illegible Words) amended by chapter two hundred twenty-seven of the laws of (Illegible Words) seventy-nine, is amended to read as follows: (Illegible Lines) efficency and equipment of school buses used to transport pupils, with particular regard to the safety and convenience of such pupils and the suitability and adaptability of such school buses to the requirements of the school district. The capacity of such school buses shall not be in excess of the needs of the school district with reference to the particular route or routes traveled by such school bus. No school bus shall be purchased by a school district or used for the transportation of pupils unless and until it has bee n approved by the commissioner as complying with the rules, standards and specifications relating thereto. No bus manufactured after January first, nineteen hundred seventy-four shall be used to transport pupils under any contract with a school district or board of cooperative educational services unless it has been similarly approved by the commissioner, except that no such approval shall be required for buses used to transport pupils and also used to serve the general public under a certificate of pu blic convenience for the operation of an omnibus line, granted pursuant to the transportation law. The commissioner shall also establish and provide for the enforcement of rules and regulations requiring instruction on the use of seat safety belts as spe cified in subdivision five of section three hundred eighty-three of the vehicle and traffic law and section thirty-six hundred thirty-five-a of this chapter, drills in safe boarding and existing procedures and emergency drills to be conducted on all scho ol buses and shall emphasize specific hazards encountered by children during snow, ice, rain and other inclement weather. All such drills shall include instruction in the importance of orderly conduct by all school bus passengers. A minimum of three su ch drills shall be had on each school bus during the school year, the first to be conducted during the first week of the fall term.

@ 6. This act shall take effect on the thirtieth day after it shall have become a law.

ID: nht78-4.17

DATE: 01/09/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joan Claybrook; NHTSA

TO: Department of Transportation - Wisconsin

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your September 20, 1977, letter asserting that the Wisconsin requirement for minimum seat spacing does not conflict with the Federal requirement for maximum seat spacing found in Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection.

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act) (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) specifies that no State shall have in effect a safety standard concerning an aspect of performance regulated by a Federal safety standard, unless the State standard is identical. The Act provides a limited exception to the above where a State or local municipality has a requirement which applies only to vehicles purchased for their own use and which imposes a higher standard of performance. Both Standard No. 222, which regulates maximum seat spacing, and the Wisconsin standard, which regulates minimum seat spacing, regulate the same aspect of performance. This position is supported by our statements in Notice 5 of Standard No. 222 (41 FR 4016) which expressed the opinion that seat spacing is the regulated aspect of performance (copy enclosed). Since your State standard is not identical to the Federal standard, it is the opinion of the NHTSA that it is preempted.

You should note that although you are not permitted to impose this State standard on all vehicles used in your State, the Federal government does not preclude you from purchasing any buses for your own use from among the several designs now in production. You could, therefore, purchase only those vehicles that afford you the minimum knee space you desire. You should note further that purchase for your own use has been interpreted to mean purchased by a contractor under contract to provide transportation for school children.

SINCERELY,

State of Wisconsin / DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES

September 20, 1977

Joan Claybrook, Administrator NHTSA Office of the Administrator

Dear Ms. Claybrook:

Re: Letter to you from Mr. Robert Kurre, Wayne Corporation Date September 2, 1977

The State of Wisconsin stoutly defends it's position that there is no point of conflict between the FMVSS 222 relating to seat spacing and the Wisconsin Administrative Code, MVD 17.

FMVSS dictates a maximum space permitted (for compartmentalization) for persons riding in school buses. The Wisconsin rule states a minimum distance that is permissible.

The engineering staff at Wayne Corporation was aware of these two non-conflicting standards as of February 23, 1977. It appears to us that this should have been adequate lead time to design and test seats that can meet both the federal and state standard.

To emphasize this point, we have been advised by one manufacturer of school bus bodies that they are meeting both federal and Wisconsin standards on buses manufactured after April 1, 1977. It is the State of Wisconsin contention that it is merely a matter of proper design by the manufacturer to meet both requirements.

The Wisconsin standard was developed because of the concern for adequate knee room in the seats. The federal standard has no minimum knee room, therefore, if a manufacturer wished to have, for instance only 20 inches of knee room, he could so produce a bus and not be in conflict with the federal standard. This is what we have prevented by the implementation of our minimum spacing measurement. We have observed buses built to less than the 24 inch minimum spacing and they are unacceptable for the cross section of pupil transportation in Wisconsin.

To carry this a bit further, the State of Wisconsin subscribes to the proposal that the federal government interpret the 20 inch measurement from the seating reference point be made at the closest point between the seat back rather than have this at the widest point.

We believe Mr. Kurre is in error by stating that the State of Wisconsin has a standard in conflict with a federal standard. We further believe that our 24 inch measurement is the extreme minimum that is necessary for transportation of any school children in Wisconsin

If I can supply you with additional information in this matter, please advise.

JAMES O. PETERSON Administrator

cc: Col. LEW V. VERSNIK; CARL H. ZUTZ

ID: nht95-1.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 2, 1995

FROM: Randal K. Busick -- President, Vehicle Science Corporation

TO: Mary Versailles, Esq. -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Request for interpretations of FMVSS 210

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/3/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO RANDAL K. BUSICK (A43; STD. 210)

TEXT: Dear Ms Versailles:

This is to request a clarification of several aspects of FMVSS 210 location requirements

1. Section 4.3 states that "Anchorages that meet the frontal crash protection requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208 . . . . are exempt from the location requirements of this section."

In a Federal Register notice of December 5, 1991, the agency stated that: "Since a March 14, 1988 interpretation letter to Mr. Karl-Heinz Faber of Mercedes-Benz, the agency has considered a manual 3-point belt installed at a seating position equipped with an SIR system to be exempt from the location requirements of Standard No. 210 . . . . the agency is amending S4.3 to clarify, consistent with agency interpretation this section, that the anchorages for all seat belt assemblies that meet the frontal crash protection requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208 are exempt from the location requirements."

Does this mean that if a vehicle with 2 front seating positions is fitted with an air bag and manual three-point seat belt at each position, and this restraint system meets the frontal crash protection requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208 with the air bags alone and with the belts and air bags together, but the belts alone are not crash tested under FMVSS 208, that the seat belt assemblies are exempt from the location requirements of Standard No. 210?

2. Could you please clarify what is meant, in sections S4.3.1.1 and S4.3.1.2, by an installation in which the "belt bears upon" or "does not bear upon" the seat frame? In addition to an explanation, a few examples would be useful.

3. As regards a rear non-adjustable seat, would the anchorage system set forth in the attached photographs and diagram comply with the location requirements of S4.3.1.1(a)? We believe that it would because the relevant angle is from the seating referen ce point to the point where the end of the belt fastens to the bracket (labeled "belt and buckle pivot/fixing").

On April 30, 1990, NHTSA amended section 4.3.1.1(a) to read: "If the seat is a nonadjustable seat, then a line from the seating reference point to the nearest contact point of the belt WITH THE HARDWARE ATTACHING IT TO THE ANCHORAGE shall . . . ." (Em phasis added.) By notice dated December 5, 1991, the agency deleted the phrase" hardware attaching it to the anchorage", because in that same notice, NHTSA amended the definition of "anchorage" to include "attachment hardware". The agency specifically stated that t he above phrase was therefore superfluous. This deletion, however, should not have changed anything substantively, and because the attached design would comply with the section as worded on April 30, 1990, we believe that the design complies with sectio n 4.3.1.1(a) as it reads today.

We look forward to your reply. Kindly direct your response or any questions to our Colorado office, P.O. Box 1015, Golden CO 80402-1015 (Tel. 303 279 0203). Thank you.

ID: 77-4.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/08/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Great Dane Trailers Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 8, 1977, letter posing several hypothetical questions concerning the responsibility to attach a new label to a vehicle if altered prior to first purchase for purposes other than resale.

Section 108(b) (1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1), states that the prohibition against the delivery of a nonconforming vehicle "shall not apply to the introduction or delivery for introduction in interstate commerce of any motor vehicle. . . .after the first purchase of it in good faith for purposes other than resale." You ask at what point in time the "first purchase" is deemed to have occurred. We have taken the position that the purchase is not complete until the vehicle is delivered to the purchaser.

In general, the issuance of title to which you refer in your letter is irrelevant to a determination of whether there is a need for the manufacturer's representative to attach a new label to an altered vehicle, as required by Part 567.7, Certification. Delivery of the vehicle is the point at which the first purchase is complete and the responsibility to attach a new label ceases. We would note that if the issue of vehicle modification is raised and decided upon during the sales conversations we would consider a subsequent modification occurring after the point of delivery to be an event requiring the attachment of a new label.

In particular response to your hypotheticals, paragraphs B and D through H represent occasions when vehicle alterations would result in the need to attach a new label in accordance with the requirements of Part 567.7. The reason for this conclusion is that all of the hypotheticals result in the alteration of the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR), or gross axle weight ratings (GAWR) or the attachment or removal of non-readily attachable components. There would be no need, in paragraphs B and D, to attach a new label if the vehicle manufacturer had availed himself of the option of listing alternative GAWR's, with appropriate tire sizes, as long as the newly installed tires were among those listed on the certification label.

Paragraphs A and C do not present alteration situations in which the GVWR or the GAWR are affected. Although the tires would have a greater load capacity than that rated on the vehicle label, there is no need to change the rating of the vehicle, as is the case when tires are installed that have lower load capacities. Further, the installation of tires constitutes the installation of readily attachable components. Therefore, there is no need to attach a new label in accordance with Part 567.7 in these situations.

ID: nht71-5.54

DATE: 06/30/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Trailer Coach Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 7 requesting interpretations of Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, and Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection.

First, with respect to Standard No. 207, you have asked whether designated seating positions must be labeled as such. Our response is that the labeling section requires labels on seats not designated for occupancy while the vehicle is in motion but does not require designated seating positions to be labeled.

With respect to the nature and content of the label on a seat not designated for occupancy, the standard states that the seat must be "conspicuously labeled to that effect." There are thus two general requirements: that the label be conspicuous and that it indicate that the seat is not to be occupied while the vehicle is in motion. The requirement for conspicuousness relates to the location of the label and the prominence of its lettering. Generally speaking, it would have to be located so that it could be seen by a person preparing to occupy the seat and of a size that could be read by the occupant-in the normal motion of sitting. The statement on the label must clearly indicate that the seat is not to be occupied while the vehicle is in motion, but the exact wording is left to the manufacturer.

Standard No. 208 requires that MPV's and trucks with a GVWR of less than 10,000 pounds, manufactured from January 1, 1972 to August 15, 1975, must elect either a passive protection system or a seat belt system that requires Type 2 seat belt assemblies

at outboard designated seating positions that include the windshield header within the head impact area. A similar requirement, without the passive option, goes into effect July 1, 1971, for these vehicles. Your question is whether, if a seating position does not have the windshield header within the head impact area, it is permitted to have a Type 1 seat belt assembly. Our response is that the standard permits a Type 1 belt for such a position.

Please advise us if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely

TRAILER COACH ASSOCIATION

7 June 1971

Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attention: Office of the Chief Counsel

Enclosed are the following requests for interpretation relative to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations and Standards: TCA-RI-1-71 - Request for Interpretation (7 June 1971) 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Record Keeping; TCA-RI-2-71 - Request for Interpretation (7 June 1971) Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 207, Seating Systems Passenger Cars, Multi-Purpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks and Buses; Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208 Occupant Crash Protection.

The requests for interpretation formats and contents have been developed to facilitate interpretation by the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Trailer Coach Association wishes to develop an optimum standard system for requesting interpretations and would appreciate any comments from the Administrator, NHTSA, concerning improvements in format and content.

Richard I. Moss Washington Representative Trailer Coach Association

7 June 1971

REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION 1-71 (TCA-RI-1-71)

SUBJECT: 49 CFR Part 574 Tire Identification and Record Keeping

This document constitutes a formal request from the Trailer Coach Association to the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for interpretation relative to the application of 49 CFR Part 574 Tire Identification and Record Keeping to the mobile home and recreation vehicle industry.

This document is designed to simplify arrival at an interpretation by the Administrator, NHTSA, and consists of the following paragraphs:

1.0 Background

2.0 Problem

2.1 Development of the problem situation

2.2 The specific problem

3.0 Request for Interpretation

Please forward the interpretation to the following office:

Washington Representative Trailer Coach Association 1800 North Kent Street, Suite 922 Arlington, Virginia 22209.

RICHARD I. MOSS Washington Representative Trailer Coach Association

REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION 1-71 (TCA-RI-1-71)

SUBJECT: 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation (Part 574)

1.0 Background

In the recreation vehicle manufacturing process, the flow of tires and vehicles from the tire manufacturer to the customer is often complex. This complexity occurs primarily because several types of recreation vehicles are manufactured in two or more stages.

Figure - 1 -- Flow chart Type I Sequence of Tire Identification and Record Keeping Activity portrays one typical flow of tires and vehicles from the tire manufacturer to the customer.

Figure - 2 -- Coding Chart for Tire Identification and Record Keeping Activity provides a key to the activities performed by each organization along the flow (boxes 1 through 6 inclusive) as interpreted by the staff, Trailer Coach Association

2.0 Problem

2.1 Development of the Problem Situation

In Figure - 1 there is no tire dealer. There are, however, two motor vehicle dealers in the flow of tires and vehicles, namely, the truck dealer and the motor home dealer.

Paragraph 574.7 (Tire Distributors and Dealers) of the tire identification and record keeping regulations requires the tire distributors and dealers to provide tire information to the tire manufacturer.

Paragraph 574.8 establishes motor vehicle dealers as tire dealers when (1) he sells a used motor vehicle for purposes other than resale or leases a motor vehicle for more than 60 days that is equipped with new tires or newly retreaded tires; or (2) he sells a new motor vehicle to first purchaser that is equipped with tires that were not on the vehicle when shipped by the vehicle manufacturer.

There is no specific requirement appearing in 574 Tire Identification and Record Keeping for the motor vehicle dealer selling a new vehicle to the first purchaser equipped with tires when shipped by the manufacturer to report information to the motor vehicle manufacturer or the tire manufacturer.

A study of Figure - 1 flow chart indicates that: (1) There is no tire dealer in the chain; and (2) There are two motor vehicle dealers in the chain. Neither dealer is specifically required to report tire data by the provisions of 574, the tire identification and record keeping regulation.

Paragraph 574.9 requires the motor vehicle manufacturer to maintain a record, by identification number, of tires on or in each vehicle shipped by him to a motor vehicle distributor or dealer and to maintain a record of the name and address of the first purchaser for purposes other than resale of each vehicle equipped with such tires.

2.2 The Specific Problem

The tire identification and record keeping regulations as written and as applied to Flow Chart Type I, Sequence of Tire Identification and Record Keeping Activity, present the recreation vehicle manufacturer with the following problems.

(1) The vehicle manufacturer is required to report tire information, but, in the case of a vehicle equipped with tires provided by the manufacturer, the vehicle dealer is not specifically required to provide tire data to the vehicle manufacturer.

(2) The vehicle manufacturer is not considered a tire dealer and is not required to provide tire data to the tire manufacturer.

(3) The vehicle manufacturer cannot comply with 574 if the vehicle dealer refuses to provide tire data.

(4) The tire reporting chain is broken (Fig-1) and 574 the tire identification and reporting regulation becomes ineffective.

3.0 Request for Interpretation

It is requested that the following questions be answered in order to provide a sound basis for recreation vehicle industry compliance with 49 CFR Part 574 Tire Identification and Reporting Requirements.

3.1 Is there a specific regulation requiring the motor vehicle dealer to report tire data to the motor vehicle manufacturer when the motor vehicle is equipped with new tires installed by the motor vehicle manufacturer?

3.2 Would the Administrator apply Section 113f, National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 as the means

to the motor vehicle manufacturer when the motor vehicle is equipped with new tires installed by the motor vehicle manufacturer?

3.3 What specific regulation requires the motor vehicle manufacturer to report tire data to the tire manufacturer when new tires have been procured for motor vehicles direct from the manufacturer?

3.4 If a motor vehicle manufacturer who sells a motor vehicle to a motor vehicle dealer which is equipped with new tires installed by the manufactured has documented proof (such as a registered letter) that the motor vehicle dealer refused to provide the required tire records:

3.4.1 Has the motor vehicle manufacturer shown "due care" by having documentary evidence of the dealer's refusal to provide the tire records?

3.4.2 If the motor vehicle manufacturer informs the Administrator, NHTSA, concerning the dealer's refusal to provide tire records and provides documentary evidence of the dealer's refusal to provide tire records, what assistance will the Administrator, NHTSA, provide for the motor vehicle manufacturer?

Fig.

(FLOW CHART OMITTED)

NOTES 1. LETTERS (A,B,C) ARE CODES INDICATING SPECIFIC ACTIVITY [SEE CODING CHART]

2. NUMBER IN PARENTHESES [(2), (3)] INDICATES ORGANIZATION TO WHICH INFO IS PASSED.

FLOW CHART TYPE I SEQUENCE OF TIRE IDENTIFICATION AND RECORD KEEPING ACTIVITY

CODING CHART FOR TIRE IDENTIFICATION RECORD KEEPING ACTIVITY Item Description of Tire Identification and Record Keeping Activity Provides means of record keeping Records information concerning purchasers Maintains records concerning all tire purchasers Maintains records concerning distribu- tors and dealers purchasing tires directly from him Submits purchaser information to tire manufacturer Maintains record of tires on or in each vehicle shipped to motor vehicle distributor or dealer Maintains records for three years Maintains name and address of first vehicle purchaser

Item Code Remarks A This is a form containing the information in item 2 below B Name and address of tire purchasers Tire identification number Name and address of tire seller C Same remarks as for Item #2 D Name and address Number of tires purchased Number of tires for which reports received Total number of tires sold by manufacturer Total number of tires reported on E Same information as for item #2 A record of all purchasers is not required F Record is by tire identification number G H

TRAILER COACH ASSOCIATION

7 June 1971

REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION 2-71 (TCA-RI-2-71)

SUBJECT: Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 207, Seating Systems

SUBJECT: Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 207, Seating Systems Passenger Cars, Multi-Purpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks and Buses; Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208; Occupant Crash Protection.

This document constitutes a formal request from the Trailer Coach Association to the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, for interpretation relative to the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 207 and 208 to the mobile home and recreation vehicle industry.

This document is designed to simplify arrival at an interpretation by the Administrator, NHTSA, and consists of the following paragraphs:

1.0 Background

2.0 Problem

2.1 Development of the Problem Situation

2.2 The Specific Problem

3.0 Request for Interpretation

Please forward the interpretation of the following office:

Washington Representative Trailer Coach Association 1800 North Kent Street, Suite 922 Arlington, Virginia 22209

RICHARD I. MOSS Washington Representative Trailer Coach Association

REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION 2-71 (TCA-RI-2-71)

SUBJECT: Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208, Occupant Crash Protection, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 207, Seating Systems Passenger Cars, Multi-Purpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks and Buses.

1.0 Background

Paragraph S 4.2.1.2 (b) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208 states that "The vehicle shall have seat belt assemblies that conform to Standard 209 as follows:

(a) . . . .

(b) In all vehicles except those for which requirements are specified in S 4.2.1.2 (a), a type of seat belt assembly shall be installed for each outboard designated seating position that includes the windshield header within the head impact area, and a type 1 or type 2 seat belt assembly shall be installed for each other designated seating position."

There appears to be no requirement for labeling designated seating positions Standard 207, paragraph S 4.4 states that

"Seats not designated for occupancy while the vehicle is in motion shall be conspicuously labeled to that effect."

2.0 Problem 2.1 Development of the Problem Situation

The problem confronting the recreation vehicle industry has developed relative to: (1) The requirement for type 2 seat belts if the windshield header is not in the head impact area; (2) The requirements for labeling designated seating positions; and (3) The requirement for labeling seats other than designated seating positions.

2.2 The Specific Problem

Does paragraph S 4.2.1.2(b) Standard 208 mean that if the windshield header is not in the head impact area, type 1 seat belt assemblies are satisfactory?

Are there labeling requirements for designated positions?

What are the specific requirements relative to labeling seats not designated for occupancy while the vehicle is in motion?

3.0 Request for Interpretation

It is requested that the following questions be answered in order to provide a sound basis for recreation vehicle industry compliance with Standard 207, Seating systems - Passenger Cars, Multi-Purpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks and Buses; and Standard 208 - Occupant Crash Protection:

3.1 If the windshield header is not within the head impact area, is a type 1 seat belt satisfactory for the designated seating position?

3.2 Is labeling required for designated seating positions? If so, what are the requirements for:

3.2.1 Label Contents?

3.2.2 Lettering Size?

3.2.3 Contrast?

3.2.4 Location?

3.2.5 Number of labels per designated seating position?

3.3 What are the requirements for the labels required by paragraph S 4.4 standard 207? Specifically, what are the requirements for:

3.3.1 Label Contents?

3.3.2 Lettering Size?

3.3.3 Contrast?

3.3.4 Location?

3.3.5 Number of Labels?

ID: nht90-3.89

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 10, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Steve Pickering -- Valley Sales Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to undated letter from S.W.A. Pickering to S.R. Kratzke (OCC 4846); Also attached to photos (graphics omitted); Also attached to Report on Test of Sofa Bar according to FMVSS No. 210, submitted by Kenneth Lauer, P.E., April 1986 (text omitted); Also attached to Test Report Number 096441-89 dated 12-15-89 (Text omitted, test results are available in the file)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to Steve Kratzke of my staff, asking how our safety standards would affect a product you are seeking to patent. This planned product is a molded plastic insert intended to be installed on the cargo bed of pickup trucks near the cab, and consists of two rear-facing seats. Throughout the rest of this letter, I will refer to this product as a "crossbed seat." You asked this agency to comment on the extent to which this crossbed seat would comply with several safety standards . I am pleased to have this opportunity to do so.

Before addressing your specific questions, some background information might be helpful. This agency has no authority to approve, endorse, or offer assurances of compliance for any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) establishes a process under which this agency is authorized to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Every manufacturer must then certify that each of its motor vehicles and each item of motor vehicle equipment complies with all applicable safety standards.

Since your product would be used as a seating position in a motor vehicle while the vehicle is in motion, each occupant position on the crossbed seat would be considered a "designated seating position" within the meaning of S571.3. Thus, if your product were to be installed as an item of original equipment on a pickup before its first sale to a retail purchaser, the designated seating positions on your product would have to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 207, Seating Systems; Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection; Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. You indicated in your letter that you plan to install Type 1 (lap-only) safety belts at these seating positions to comply with Standard No. 208. This would be consistent with the requirements of Standard No. 208, which permits these designated seating positions to be equipped with either Type 1 or Type 2 (lap/shoulder) safety belts.

Your letter did not indicate that you had considered Standard No. 207 in your examination of the relevant safety standards. If you have not already done so, you should consider whether the seating positions on your planned crossbed seat would comply wit h the requirements of this standard.

You also identified two standards that you had considered with respect to your crossbed seat. The first of these was Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors. S6 of Standard No. 111 provides that pickup trucks may either meet the rearward visibility requirem ents applicable to passenger cars or have outside mirrors on both sides of the vehicle that provide visibility to the rear along both sides of the vehicle. These requirements would not necessarily preclude the installation of your crossbed seat in new p ickups.

The second standard you identified was Standard No. 202, Head Restraints. S4.3 of Standard No. 202 requires each "outboard front designated seating position" to be equipped with head restraints that meet the specified performance criteria. The seating p ositions on your crossbed seat are rear seating positions. Since Standard No. 202 does not require rear seating positions to be equipped with head restraints, you are free to choose whetber or not to install head restraints for your crossbed seats.

You should note that you would be considered a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment if you begin to manufacture these crossbed seats. As such, the Safety Act would make you responsible for conducting a notification and remedy campaign if you or the a gency were to determine that this product contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety or fails to comply with an applicable safety standard. A copy of an information sheet briefly describing these responsiblities and explaining how to obtain copie s of our regulations is enclosed.

If you have any further questions or need some additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 21938

Mr. Jimmy Biondi
W.J. Casey Trucking and Rigging Co., Inc.
1200 Springfield Rd.
Union, NJ 07083





Dear Mr. Biondi:

This is in response to your recent correspondence and telephone inquiries relating to the classification of certain specialized vehicles owned by your company.

You ask whether the individual units are motor vehicles and therefore subject to safety standards administered by this agency.

As discussed below, the answer to your question appears to be yes. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues safety standards for "motor vehicles." Section 30101(a)(6) of Chapter 301 of Volume 49 of the United States Code defines "motor vehicle" as:

any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

You describe the vehicles as hydraulic suspension trailers that consist of a series of axles linked through a common hydraulic system in either a two, three, or four axle configuration. The individual units can be used alone or may be joined together depending on the load to be carried. The units have a minimum of 2 axles per unit with 8 tires per axle and have a maximum load of 34 metric tonnes (33.46 tons) per axle. The axle units are 10 feet wide and support a flat deck. Each axle is steerable and the hydraulic suspension may be adjusted while the vehicle is in motion in order to ensure that the deck remains level even when the unit is traveling over an uneven surface.

You further indicate that these vehicles are to be used for the short distance transport of unusually large cargo to and from rail sidings, utility substations and shipping ports. Your letter indicates that when empty, the modules are trucked to the work site on trailers and then assembled in the configuration needed for the work at hand. You further state that when the units are to be used on a site that is "local," the modules would be configured at your site and the resulting trailer would be towed to the site where it is to be loaded. In a telephone conversation, you also indicated that with the exception of the two axle units, an individual unit or module would travel empty on the highway en route to a location where it would be loaded.

In your letter, you stated that the trailer is always accompanied by company escorts and state police as required by permits. You also indicate that the maximum travel speed is 40 miles per hour empty and usually less than 20 miles per hour when the trailer is loaded. We assume that your use of these trailers is consistent with the intentions of the manufacturer.

Based on the information you provided, it is our opinion that the vehicles you describe are motor vehicles for the purposes of Chapter 301 and Federal motor vehicle safety standards. As you indicated in your letter and telephone conversation, all of the units will travel on public highways at speeds above 20 miles per hour. Furthermore, such operation would not be incidental to their main use but would be part of the normal use and operation of the vehicles.

As the trailers are motor vehicles, they are subject to the requirements of Chapter 301. Section 30115 of Chapter 301 (49 U.S.C. 30115) requires that the manufacturer must certify that a vehicle meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards and, in the case of a vehicle, must permanently affix a certification label or tag to the vehicle. For your information, I have enclosed an agency guide for trailer manufacturers which provides guidance on the safety standards applicable to trailers.

We note, however, that due to the unusual configuration of these trailers, they would not be required to conform to several Federal motor vehicle safety standards that are applicable to more conventional trailers.

For example, Standard No. 224, Rear impact protection, requires most trailers and semitrailers weighing over 10,000 pounds to be fitted at the rear with a rear impact (underride) guard meeting the requirements of Standard No. 223, Rear impact guards (49 CFR 571.223 and 571.224, published on January 24, 1996, at 61 FR 2004). However, certain kinds of vehicles are excluded. The only excluded categories that are relevant for the purposes of this letter are wheels back vehicles and low chassis vehicles. Wheels-back vehicles are excluded by S3 of Standard No. 224, Rear impact protection. The term is defined in S4 as a "trailer or semitrailer whose rearmost axle is permanently fixed and is located such that the rearmost surface of [the tire] on that axle is not more than 305 mm forward of the transverse vertical plane tangent to the rear extremity of the vehicle."

The drawing you enclosed of the trailer owned by your company shows that the rear surface of the tires on that axle is within 305 mm of the rear extremity. Assuming the axle is "permanently fixed," this is a wheels back vehicle, and no guard is required.

We also note that your trailers appear to be excluded from the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) No. 121, Air Brake Systems (49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 571.121). Standard No. 121 applies to trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with air brake systems. However, subparagraphs S3(a) through (g) of Standard 121 lists seven types of vehicles to which the standard does not apply. Applicable to your trailer, paragraph S3(a) excludes any trailer that has a width of more than 102.36 inches with extendable equipment in the fully retracted position and is equipped with two short track axles in a line across the width of the trailer. Similarly, S3(e) excludes any trailer that has a GVWR of more than 120,000 pounds and whose body conforms to that described in the definition of heavy hauler trailer set forth in S4

Heavy hauler trailer is defined in S4 as:

[A] trailer which has one or more of the following characteristics, but which is not a container chassis trailer:

(1) Its brake lines are designed to adapt to separation or extension of the vehicle frame; or

(2) Its body consists only of a platform whose primary cargo-carrying surface is not more than 40 inches above the ground in an unloaded condition ...

The drawings that you have provided indicate that the trailers at issue are 118 inches wide and have two short track axles under the trailer deck. Accordingly, these trailers are, by virtue of S3(a) of Standard No. 121, not required to meet the requirements of Standard No. 121. The information attached to your letter also indicates that the trailers have a GVWR exceeding 120,000 pounds and that the cargo-carrying surface of the trailer bed is less than forty inches above the ground. If so, S4(a)(2) applies and, when combined with the trailer's GVWR, excludes your trailer from the ABS requirements in accordance with S3(e) of Standard No. 121.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Otto Matheke at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack.
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:121
d.3/22/01

ID: nht81-3.38

DATE: 11/12/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Cosco

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter concerning the application of Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, to a booster seat that uses a vehicle lap belt or lap/shoulder belt to restraint a child weighing 20 or more pounds. The following discussion answers your questions concerning the application of specific sections of the standard to a booster seat.

Section 4 of the standard defines a "child restraint system" as "any device, except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh not more than 50 pounds." Since the booster seat you described would be used to seat a child weighing less than 50 pounds in a vehicle, it is a child restraint system and thus must meet the requirements of the standard. The vehicle lap belt (Type I belt) or lap/shoulder belt (Type II belt) used with the system are specifically excluded by the definition of child restraint system and thus are not covered by the requirements of the standard.

You said that the booster seat would have no sides, back or fixed or movable surface directly in front of the child and asked how the standard would apply to such a design. The standard does not require a child restraint to have a back, sides or fixed or movable surface in front of the child. If such surfaces are provided, however, they must comply with the applicable requirements of sections 5.2.2, 5.2.3, and 5.2.4.

Each child restraint is required to meet the minimum head support surface requirements of S5.2.1. Section 5.2.1.2, however, exempts forward-facing child restraint from the minimum head support surface requirement if, "the target point on either side of the dummy's head is below a horizontal plane tangent to the top of the standard seat assembly when the dummy is positioned in the system and the system is installed on the assembly in accordance with S6.1.2." Thus, unless your design is within the exception of S5.2.1.2, it would have to comply with the minimum head support requirements of S5.2.1.1. Any head support surface would also have to comply with the applicable requirements of S5.2.3. and S5.2.4.

You asked about the application of S5.4.3.2 to a booster seat. Section 5.4.3.2 provides that:

Each belt that is a part of a child restraint system and that is designed to restrain a child using the system and to attach the system to the vehicle shall, when tested in accordance with S6.1, impose no loads on the child that result from the mass of the system or the mass of the seat back of the standard seat assembly specified in S7.3. (Emphasis added.)

As previously mentioned, the definition of a "child restraint system" specifically excludes Type I or Type II seat belts from the coverage of the standard. Thus, under that definition and the language emphasized above, the requirements of S5.4.3.2 do not apply to the lap and lap/shoulder belts used with a child restraint system. The agency, however, is concerned that when a vehicle lap belt is used with a child restraint system to restrain a child that the lap belt be positioned so that it does not apply impact loads to the abdomen of the child, the area most vulnerable to the forces imposed by the belt. Instead, the vehicle lap belt should be held in place by the child restraint so that it passes over the pelvis and thighs of a child, areas of the body best able to withstand the forces imposed by the vehicle belt. Based on the drawing of your restraint, we are concerned that the vehicle lap belt may not be properly positioned and securely held by the restraint. Instead, the lap belt may allow submarining and may apply impact loads to the abdomen. The agency is also concerned that the lap belt should be properly positioned and securely held so that no substantial inertial loads of the booster seat are applied to the child.

You stated that the booster seat would not have a harness system when it is used at a vehicle seating position equipped with a lap/shoulder belt. The standard does not require the use of a harness in a child restraint system. Section 5.4.3.3 of the standard provides, in part, that "each child restraint system . . . that has belts designed to restrain the child" must comply with the specific requirements of S5.4.3.3. (Emphasis added.) Thus, the specific requirements of S5.4.3.3 on harness systems only applies if a manufacturer provides belts as a part of the system.

Finally, you said that the booster seat would be sold with an auxiliary tethered shoulder harness. The harness would attach to the vehicle lap belt when the booster seat is used at a vehicle seating position that has no lap/shoulder belt. The harness would not have a crotch strap. As discussed previously, section 5.4.3.3 of the standard specifies the requirements that a child restraint system which provides a belt system must meet. S5.4.3.3(c) provides:

(c) In the case of each seating system recommended for children over 20 pounds, crotch restraint in the form of:

i) a crotch strap connectable to the lap belt or other device used to restrain the lower torso, or

ii) a fixed or movable surface that complies with S5.2.2.1(c).

The purpose of subsection (c) is to require a belt or surface design that will prevent the child from submarining under the lap belt (i.e., sliding down and forward under the belt). Thus, if a crotch belt is not provided, the surface of the restraint must be designed to prevent submarining and comply with S5.2.2.1(c). For example, the seating surface of the restraint could be designed to prevent submarining.

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

SINCERELY,

COSCO

Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel U.S. Dept. of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration July 27, 1981

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We are in the process of evaluating various new concepts for future child restraints we may produce. In this evaluation, we are uncertain what will or will not be allowed under the 213-80 juvenile car seat standard on designs that have a minimal "booster" seat and rely on the automobile adult lap belt or the auto adult lap/shoulder belt as a direct means of restraining the child.

If we had a design that was specified to be used only by children over 20 lbs., that had a firm seating platform with no sides or back, that by its design properly positioned the auto's three (3) point adult lap/shoulder belt for this age of child to provide adequate protection during dynamic testing, would such a design be allowed by the 213-80 juvenile car seat standard? It should be noted that the auto belts would be in direct contact with the child; there would be no other harness belts when used in an auto seat that provides a lap/shoulder belt; there would be no crotch strap at any time, but there would be an auxiliary tethered shoulder harness that would attach to the auto lap belt for use where no automobile lap/shoulder belt is provided. Finally, there would be no fixed or movable surface directly forward of the child. A drawing representing this concept is attached.

There are several sections of the standard that need interpreting on how they relate to such a design. They include Sections S5.4.3.2. through to Section S5.5 and others.

Would you please give us your official interpretation on whether this proposed design would comply with the 213-80 standard? We hope you will be able to give these questions your immediate attention.

Roy Knoedler Senior Industrial Designer

ENC.

(Graphics omitted)

ID: aiam4750

"Dear Mr. Garringer: This responds to your letter asking whethe Federal law permits the installation of tinted plastic film on the bottom of motor vehicle windshields. The purpose of this film would be to reduce glare for the driver and any front seat passengers. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain how our laws and regulations apply to such a product. Our agency is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., the Safety Act) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products or processes. Instead, the Safety Act specifies that each manufacturer itself must certify that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards, and also investigates alleged defects related to motor vehicle safety and alleged violations of other statutory provisions. Pursuant to this authority, NHTSA has issued Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205), which sets forth performance requirements for windows and other glazing items installed in motor vehicles. Among the requirements set forth in Standard No. 205 are specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance. A minimum of 70 percent light transmittance is required in glazing areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars. In trucks and buses, the windshield and windows to the immediate right and left of the driver and the rearmost window, if the latter is used for driving visibility, are considered to be requisite for driving visibility, and therefore subject to the 70 percent minimum light transmittance requirement. Your letter did not provide any information on the light transmittance that would be measured through glazing with your Hood Glare product installed on it. The combination of the glazing material and your tinting film must allow at least 70 percent light transmittance to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205. No manufacturer or dealer would be permitted to install your tinting film on the glazing materials on new vehicles, unless the manufacturer or dealer certifies that the vehicle continues to comply with the 70 percent minimum light transmittance and other requirements of Standard No. 205. After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to the vehicle are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from 'rendering inoperative' any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with any safety standard. This provision of the law means that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business could install tinting film if the addition of the tinting film to the glazing would result in a light transmittance of less than 70 percent, or otherwise cause the vehicle to no longer comply with the applicable requirements of Standard 205. Violations of this 'render inoperative' prohibition can result in Federal civil penalties to the manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business of up to $1000 for each noncomplying installation. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act does not affect vehicle owners. Hence, vehicle owners themselves may install tinting film or any other product on the glazing of their vehicle, regardless of whether the installation causes the vehicle to no longer comply with Standard No. 205. Individual States have the authority to regulate the operational use of vehicles by their owners, and, therefore, have the authority to regulate or preclude individual owner modifications to the glazing of their vehicles. I have enclosed an information sheet that summarizes the relationship between Federal auto safety laws and motor vehicle window tinting. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need any additional information about this topic, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure";