ID: nht75-4.9

DATE: 05/20/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Oshkosh Truck Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 1, 1975, request for confirmation that the emergency braking stopping distance requirements in S5.7.2.3 of Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, specify that, when stopped six times for each configuration of weight and speed specified in S5.3.1.1 on a road surface with a skid number of 75 (with a single failure introduced in the service brake system), the vehicle must stop at least once within the distances specified in Column 3 of Table II and no part of the vehicle must leave the 12-foot roadway. You also request confirmation that modulation of the service brake control during the stop is not prohibited.

With certain exceptions, the statements in your letter are correct. Your interpretation only sets out the basic stopping distance requirements for those vehicles which the manufacturer has chosen to make conform to S5.7.2 of the standard. Thus, your interpretation does not include any of the requirements of the emergency braking capability option found in S5.7.1. Additionally, your interpretation does not include the requirements for a truck-tractor at unloaded vehicle weight plus 500 pounds, or for the trucks and buses which qualify for the interim requirements of S5.7.2.3.1 and S5.7.2.3.2.

Section S5.7.2 does not prohibit modulation of the emergency braking capability, and modulation by means of the service brake control is therefore permissible.

YOURS TRULY,

April 1, 1975

Richard Dyson Acting Chief Counsel U.S. Dept. of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Admin.

Please review our interpretation of Sections 5.7.1 and 5.7.2 of FMVSS 121 which pertain to emergency brake system operation and performance.

Our interpretation is such that:

1) During an acceptable emergency braking stop, the stopping distance must not exceed the values specified in Column 3 of Table II and no part of the vehicle must leave the 12 foot roadway.

2) When stopped six times, for each combination of weight and speed specified in 5.3.1.1, with a skid number of 75, at least one acceptable emergency braking stop must occur.

3) During an emergency braking stop, the emergency braking system may be modulated. Modulation occurs by actuation of the service brake control.

OSHKOSH TRUCK CORPORATION

Danny J. Lanzdorf Supervising Engineer

ID: nht95-2.86

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 18, 1995

FROM: Jim Burgess -- Engineering Manager, Independent Mobility Systems, Inc

TO: Walter Myers -- Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/4/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO JIM BURGESS (A43; REDBOOK 2; STD. 206)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Meyers:

Per our conversation earlier today, I am writing to learn your interpretation of 49CFR, 571.206, S4, as it pertains to our vehicles.

As we discussed, for eight (8) years, Independent Mobility Systems, Inc., has been converting Chrysler minivans, and recently Ford minivans, into wheelchair accessible vehicles by lowering the floor and adding a wheelchair ramp in the passenger side rear sliding door area. We have crash tested these converted vehicles at OTRC in Ohio for FMVSS 571.208 Frontal Impact, and for FMVSS 571.301 Rear Impact and Side Impact, to gain certification.

In regard to 49CFR, 571.206, S4, our interpretation is that side doors on motor vehicles which are equipped with wheelchair lifts, and linked to an alarm system consisting of either a flashing visible signal located in the driver's compartment or an alar m audible to the driver which is activated when the door is open, need not conform to this standard, pertains to our converted vehicles. We believe the wheelchair ramp we employ serves the same function as a wheelchair lift, in that it provides those per sons in wheelchairs or access to the vehicle, and thus we do not have to conform to this standard.

Because we have had inquiries from customers on this issue, your written interpretation to our inquiry will be appreciated.

ENCLOSURE

June 16, 1995

Dear Mr. Meyers:

As per our telephone conversation this morning, I am sending the enclosed brochures on our current offerings. As I stated, we are working on converting the new 1996 Chrysler NS minivans. We are scheduled for crash testing this vehicle the latter part o f July and offer it for sale in mid-August.

If you have any further questions before ruling on our request of May 18, 1995, regarding interpretation of 49 CFR, 571.206, S4, please call me.

Sincerely,

INDEPENDENT MOBILITY SYSTEMS, INC.

Jim Burgess Engineer

Enclosure: RAMPVAN BROCHURE/PHOTOS OMITTED

ID: nht92-4.2

DATE: 09/17/92

FROM: MARK W. RUSSO

TO: WALTER MYERS -- NHTSA

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-7-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO MARK W. RUSSO (A40; STD. 222); ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 7-14-92 FROM PAUL RICE TO MICHAEL F. HECKER (STD. 222)

TEXT: Thank you for discussing the R-Bar subject with me. As I mentioned in our conversation, I am very concerned over the "applicability" issue regarding the R-Bar and FMVSS 222. I fear that a device not covered by a "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard" may be installed in a school bus that will be transporting my children!

In addition to our conversation, I want to stress one area where I believe this device creates a condition that could be considered in non compliance with the objectives of FMVSS 222, section S5.1.4 (c). With reference to a NHTSA letter from Mr. Rice to Mr. Hecker (Micho, Ind.) dated May 14, 1992, which indicates that Mr. Hecker claims the device incorporates a design that allows it to "move upward, and away, from the adjoining seat which would thus allow the minimum clearance as intended". Being familiar with the operating principle of this device, I tend to agree in theory. However, what Mr. Hecker fails to mention is that the device also incorporates a "drop down" feature (by nature of a positive mechanical action) which is activated by forward movement of the device! Thus, if a passenger is "recoiled" forward, or if a subsequent frontal collision occurs, impact with the bar should activate this approximate 2 inch drop down feature. So, if there is any concern regarding minimum clearance in accordance with section S5.1.4 (c), it appears the operating principle of this device complicates the problem. Further, I also believe this "drop down" mechanism, in the above scenario, could create the potential for the bar to become jammed against a passenger's legs as a result of this "roller and track" drop down mechanism.

I would also like to know if there has been any further developments at NHTSA regarding the R-Bar subject since Mr. Rice responded to Mr. Hecker of Micho (May 14 letter from NHTSA). The N.J. Department of Pupil Transportation is under the impression that Micho Industries had planned to write to NHTSA again to suggest that only a different "interpretation" of their test data would resolve this issue.

I have a list of questions I am sending to Micho Industries covering many of the things you and I had discussed. I will keep you advised as to their response to these questions and any other new developments. I would appreciate any comments you may have regarding this R-Bar subject.

ID: nht90-1.39

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 7, 1990

FROM: Dipl.-Ing. H. Westermann -- Hella KG Hueck & Co.

TO: Richard van Iderstine -- Rulemaking Department., NHTSA

TITLE: Request for written response - CHMSL unity.

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-21-90 To Taylor Vinson and From Dipl.-Ing. H. Westermann (OCC 4484); Also attached to letter dated 4-25-90 To Dipl.-Ing. H. Westermann and From Stephen P. Wood (A35; Std.108)

TEXT:

One of our customers prefers to place a logo within or in between the light emitting surface of a CHMSL. The enclosed sketches show two such designs: one for inside mounting behind the rear window (encl. 1), an other for top mounting on the trunk of a convertible (encl. 2). According to ECE Regulation 48, 5 2.14.2, a signalling lamp consisting of juxtaposed elements forms a single unit if the smallest rectangle circumscribing the several light emitting surfaces is occupied by not less than 60 percent of light emitting area. E/ECE/324 E/ECE/trans/505 Rev.1/Add.47 Regulation No. 48 page 6 2.14.2. "two lamps" or "an even number of lamps": a single light-emitting surface in the shape of a band or strip if such band or strip is placed the median longitudinal plane of the vehicle, extends on both sides to within at least 0.4 m of the extreme outer edge of the vehicle, and is not leas than 0.8 m long; the llumination of such surface shall be provided by not less than two light sources placed as close as possible to its ends; the light-emitting surface may be constituted by number of juxtaposed elements on condition that the projections of the several individual light-emitting surfaces ona transverse plane occupy not less than 60 per cent of the area of the smallest rectangle circumscribing the projections of the said individual light-emitting surfaces;

In above design this requirement is fulfilled and the total area exceeds the required 4.5sq.inch. We ourself see no problem in such a design for a CHMSL since neither the signal configuration (triangle of stop lamps) nor acuity (by luminance and intensity) are affected. Since neither SAE nor FMVSS 108 yield a clear definition of signal unity if constituted of partial areas, we would like to learn whether NHTSA supports the ECE definition and can accept such CHMSL design as not violating the FMVSS requirements. A soon answer on this item is very much appreciated.

Enclosures 2 Graphics Omitted.

ID: nht90-1.59

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 27, 1990

FROM: Don James -- Contracts, Stone Bennett Corporation

TO: Docket Section -- NHTSA

TITLE: Re Docket No. 88-16; Notice 3

ATTACHMT: Attached to diagram of the toggle installation & envelope (graphics omitted); Also attached to diagram of control panel with auto-neutral (graphics omitted); Also attached to diagram of control panels (text and graphics omitted); Also attached to letter dated 10-12-90 from P.J. Rice (Signature by K.W. Weinstein) to D. James (A36; Std. 102); Also attached to copy of 54 FR 29042, 7-11-89 and 55 FR 1226, 1-12-90, regarding 49 CFR Part 571 and FMVSS 201 (text omitted)

TEXT:

The above referenced Docket concerns the FMVSS Standard No. 102 and the proposed changes as they relate to Automatic Transmissions without a Park Position.

Stone Bennett Corporation has been manufacturing transmission shifting mechanisms since 1973. These mechanisms utilize pneumatics, hydraulics, or, electromotive force or any combination of the three to shift the transmission on the demand of the operato r. In all cases the transmission ranges are indicated by a series of light indicators or a sunshine readable digital display that indicates only the range selected. The method of selecting ranges is not the classic floor mounted or column mounted shift levers. Stone Bennett Corporation uses a toggle mechanism or two pushbutton switches to effect the range to range shift operation. That is, to execute a shift to an adjacent range when in the Neutral position, it will be necessary to depress a shift bu tton (push the toggle lever) to move from neutral to reverse or from neutral to drive. It is necessary to depress the pushbutton or push the toggle lever and release to allow movement through the range sequence. An example is to shift three range posit ions from drive to second in a sequence of RND321. The operator must press/release to shift to 3rd and press/release to shift from 3rd to 2nd and simarily to shift the opposite direction.

The overriding purpose of this letter is to ask for a ruling on the acceptability of providing a label indicating the range sequence on the body of the shift control console. Please see the attached documents for a visual understanding of the request.

Your immediate attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated.

ID: nht88-1.91

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 8, 1988

FROM: M. IWASE -- MANAGER, TECHNICAL ADMINISTRATION DEPT., KOITO MFG. CO., LTD. TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: Headlamp Aimability (Docket No. 85-15; Notice 5)

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 4-9-90 TO M. IWASE FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD; (A35; STD. 108). ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10-18-89 TO ERIKA Z. JONES FROM M. IWASE AND LETTER 9-12-88 TO M. IWASE FROM ERIKA Z. JONES. TEXT:

We would ask you to provide us with your confirmation of interpretation of proposed rulemaking; Headlamp Aimability as cited in Docket No. 85-15; Notice 5 of Federal Register dated Dec. 29, 1987.

We are now in the stage of studying and developing a new technology of on-vehicle aiming (Vehicle Headlamp Aiming Device) in conformity with the said NHTSA proposal so that we can adopt it into our headlamps as soon as possible in case that the proposal is put into effect as a rule.

Upon our careful review to this proposal and also through our talk with Mr. Richard Van Iderstine / Rulemaking Office of NHTSA, our ideas for headlamp aiming configuration as shown in the attached sheet are fully consistent with NHTSA's intention for hea dlamp aimability proposed therein, we believe.

Please refer to the attached sheet in which our specific questions are shown.

We would greatly appreciate it if you would kindly treat Structure-2 of attached as "Confidential" because it involves our own idea for development of on-vehicle aiming which has something related with our patent application intended hereafter.

Upon your kind review to this matter, your prompt reply would be greatly appreciated.

Attachment

Question:

Whether the following structure of on-vehicle aiming could be accepted in case that the proposed requirements of S7.7.5.2 "On-Vehicle aiming" would be regulated in the FMVSS No. 108 as they are.

Structure-2: Built-in Reflector System [GRAPHICS OMITTED]1) Lens and Housing are bonded together.

2) Built-in reflector is mounted with aiming mechanism onto Housing.

3) Aiming is made by adjusting faced direction of built-in reflector.

4) Spirit level is mounted on built-in reflector and can be seen through lens for the vertical aiming.

5) Headlamp assembly can comply with the applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 108.

ID: 10-003161 Honda 110 label march 16 df

ID: nht87-1.74

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/30/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; SIGNATURE UNAVAILABLE; NHTSA

TO: William L. Millard

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

William L. Millard, Esq. Law Offices of Shirley F. Majors 2656 South Arlington Road Akron, Ohio 44319

Dear Mr. Millard:

This responds to your letter concerning the "emergency shutdown switch" which would allow a passenger to shut of the ignition on a vehicle. You indicate in your letter that your client, Anthony M. Mazzagatti, would like to sell this idea to the Departmen t of Transportation. Your letter has been forwarded for a response to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), an agency within the Department of Transportation. I regret the delay in responding to your letter.

This agency did not purchase or require the use of particular patented devices. By way of background information, the NHTSA is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 51391, et seq.) to issue safe ty standards applicable to new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. These are performance standards which leave the choice about means of compliance to the manufacturer.

Since your client may wise to sell his device directly to manufacturers or to consumers, let me describe some Vehicle Safety Act provisions he should bear in mind. The NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipmen t for compliance with our Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). Instead, under the Vehicle Safety Act, each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable F MVSS. A copy of the Safety Act is enclosed for your information.

This "self-certification" process requires each manufacturer to determine in the exercise of due care that its product meets all applicable FMVSS requirements. This agency periodically tests items of motor vehicle equipment for compliance with the standa rds, and also investigates alleged safety related defects. If your client or the agency determines that a safety related defect or noncompliance exists, your client would be obligated to notify purchasers of the product and remedy the problem without cha rge. Manufacturers who fail to provide notification of or remedy for a defect or noncompliance may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation. (A general information sheet describing the responsibilities under the Vehicle Safety Act is e nclosed.)

If your client's product is installed in a previously certified new vehicle prior to its first sale to a consumer, then the person performing this alteration would be considered a vehicle alterer under the certification regulation, 49 Code of Federal Reg ulations (C.F.R.) 567, Certification. Part 567.7, Requirements for persons who alter certified vehicles, requires alterers to certify that the vehicle as altered complies with all applicable safety standards. The safety requirements that may apply to the installation of your client's device as described in your letter are Safety Standard No. 124, Accelerator control systems, and Safety Standard No. 101, Controls and displays. I have enclosed an information sheet describing how you can obtain copies of o ur regulations.

In addition, your client should be informed that the installation of this device in a used vehicle could be affected by S108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. This section provides, in part:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative...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 mot or vehicle safety standard....

Thus, a commercial business installing your client's product in a used vehicle would have to ensure that it did not knowingly render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with any of the safety standards.

Finally, please note that section 108(c) of the Vehicle Safety Act provides that compliance with these regulations does not preclude him from liability under common law for any accidents or injuries caused by the use of this device.

I hope that you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington. DC 20590

Re: Safety Switch

To Whom It May Concern:

I represent Mr. Anthony M. Mazzagatti in his attempt to sell a low-cost safety device that can save many lives. This device can be called an Emergency Shutdown Switch (ESD Switch). This would take the form of a button located in the center of an automobi le dashboard; it would be wired to the ignition system so that, if pushed, it would shutdown the primary ignition circuit. The only way to reset the ignition would be to stop the car, put the shift lever in park, and turn the key off.

This would save lives in several situations.

1) If a passenger finds herself in the company of a driver who is inebriated or otherwise incapacitated, she can push the ESD Switch. The car would roll to a safe stop and the passenger would have time to exit the vehicle. The driver would have time to r ethink his driving and, perhaps, travel no further.

2) In a panic situation, such as a stuck accelerator pedal, either the driver or the passenger would have the ability to stop the car without turning off the ignition and locking the steering column. If the ESD Switch was mounted in the middle of a minia ture stop sign plaque attached to the dash, it would be more likely to be used by panic stricken drivers than the ignition switch.

The ESD Switch. for the first time, gives the automobile passenger a voice in the safe driving of a vehicle. Its cost would be but a few dollars. The payback would be immense, not only in lives and money saved, but also in peace of mind.

My client would like to sell this idea to you. Please contact me to discuss this matter further.

Sincerely,

William L. Millard. Attorney at Law

ID: 002247GF

Dick Keller, Product Development Manager
Bruno Independent Living Aids
1780 Executive Drive
P.O. Box 84
Oconomowoc, WI 53066

Dear Mr. Keller:

In a letter dated November 6, 2002, you asked us seven questions regarding compliance with 49 CFR 595.7(e)(5). This section sets forth certain disclosure requirements related to vehicle modifications specifically made for a person with a disability. Among the requirements set forth in the section is a statement of the load carrying capacity of the vehicle if it has been reduced by more than 100 kilograms (220 pounds).

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers a statute requiring that motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States or imported into the United States be manufactured so as to reduce the likelihood of motor vehicle crashes and of deaths and injuries when crashes do occur. That statute is the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 ("Vehicle Safety Act") (recodified at 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq.).

One of the agency's most important functions under that Act is to issue and enforce the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs). These standards specify safety performance requirements for motor vehicles and/or items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicles must assure compliance with all applicable safety standards and permanently apply a label to each vehicle certifying that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSSs.

The Vehicle Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment that is in compliance with any applicable federal motor vehicle safety standard. NHTSA may exempt a person or business from the prohibition if it decides that an exemption is consistent with motor vehicle safety and the Vehicle Safety Act.

On February 27, 2001, NHTSA published a final rule setting forth a limited exemption from the make inoperative prohibition for businesses or individuals who modify vehicles for persons with disabilities (66 Federal Register 12638; Docket No. NHTSA-01-8667). This exemption is codified in 49 CFR Part 595, subpart C. Only portions of some Federal motor vehicle safety standards are covered by the exemption.

In adopting Part 595, NHTSA recognized that the individual for whom the modifications were made may not realize that the vehicle, as modified, may no longer meet all applicable FMVSS and may have a different load carrying capacity than listed in the owner's manual, on the certification label, or on a tire placard. These vehicle changes could have an effect on the overall performance of the vehicle. Accordingly, we determined that vehicle modifiers who decide to take advantage of the exemption set forth in 49 CFR Part 595 must provide the customer with certain safety information and place a permanent label on the vehicle. The language for the label is set out in 49 CFR 595.7(d), and a detailed breakdown of the required information is contained in 49 CFR 595.7(e). Among other things, vehicle modifiers must inform the purchaser if the vehicle's load carrying capacity is reduced by 100 kilograms (220 pounds) or more. The vehicle modifier may choose to include or exclude the weight of a wheelchair when determining how much the load carrying capacity has been reduced. However, the modifier is required to tell the owner of the vehicle whether the weight of the wheelchair has been included when determining the reduced load carrying capacity and when specifying what available load capacity remains.

As discussed in the February 2001 final rule, the vehicle modifications contemplated by 49 CFR 595, subpart C are limited to modifications made for a specific customer. Accordingly, the modifier may wish to ask the customer for the weight of any wheelchair that they expect the vehicle to transport.

You have asked seven questions about the meaning of the reduced load carrying capacity disclosure requirement of Part 595. Your questions and our answers follow:

1. "If a personal motor vehicle has a class II or III towing hitch receiver and an exterior platform hoist is attached to the vehicle by that receiver, is that considered a vehicle modification when performed by a business?"

The answer to your question depends on whether the platform is readily attachable to the vehicle. If the platform is readily attachable to the hitch, it will not be considered a motor vehicle modification. If, however, the platform is not readily attachable, it would be considered a modification. In sum, whether a platform attached to a class II or III towing hitch would be considered a modification will depend on the method and difficulty of attachment.

2. "Is it a modification if it can be installed without tools, such as using a hitch pin?"

A precise answer to this question depends on the nature of the object attached to a vehicle. As a general matter, however, an object attached without the use of tools would not be a modification. For example, if a platform is secured (without the use of any tools) to a towing hitch by use of a hitch pin, such platform, being readily removable, would not be a modification.

3. "Is the tongue weight rating of the motor vehicle considered part of the load carrying capacity?"

The term "tongue weight rating of the motor vehicle" is not defined or regulated by NHTSA. Nor does the agency require vehicle manufacturers to establish or disclose their trailer towing capabilities. Accordingly, while many manufacturers choose to recommend maximum trailer weight limits for their vehicles, others do not. The same applies to load limits or ratings for trailer hitches that may be installed on a variety of vehicles if they are used for towing. Thus, it is possible that a manufacturer has included the towing capability of a vehicle in calculating the load carrying capacity. Any questions related to the addition of a trailer to a vehicle's load carrying capacity should be directed to the vehicle manufacturer.

4. "If the combined weight of the platform and the wheelchair does not exceed the tongue weight rating of the motor vehicle, does that reduce the load carrying capacity?"

Regardless of whether the combined weight of the platform and the wheelchair exceeds the tongue weight rating of the hitch, the load carrying capacity is reduced by the portion of the weight of the wheelchair and the platform that has to be borne by the vehicle. Therefore, a modifier has to inform the purchaser if the load carrying capacity has been reduced by more than 220 pounds, regardless of the tongue weight rating of the hitch.

5. "If the platform weighs 100 pounds and has a weight capacity of 350 pounds, does that reduce the load carrying capacity of the motor vehicle by more than 220 pounds?"

As noted above, 595.7(e)(5) requires that modifiers indicate any reduction in load carrying capacity over 220 pounds and inform the purchaser whether the weight of the wheelchair has been included in the calculation. The load capacity of the platform would not be relevant in calculating the actual reduction in the vehicle load carrying capacity. In the particular situation described above, the load carrying capacity is only reduced by 100 pounds, if the weight of the wheel chair is not included.

Since the vehicle modifications are custom-made to specific vehicles based on individual customers needs, a modifier will need to have knowledge as to the weight of the wheelchair to be used in conjunction with a platform that it is installing if it includes the weight of the wheelchair when calculating reduction of the load carrying capacity. If the modifier does not know the weight of the wheelchair, it should calculate the reduction in the load carrying capacity based on the weight of the platform alone. In both instances, the modifier is required to tell the owner of the vehicle whether the weight of the wheelchair has been included when determining the reduced load carrying capacity and when specifying what available load capacity remains.

6. "If the platform weighs 100 pounds and the customers wheelchair weighs more than 120 pounds does that reduce the load carrying capacity by more than 220 pounds?"

As noted above, 595.7(e)(5) requires that modifiers indicate any reduction in load carrying capacity over 220 pounds and inform the purchaser whether the weight of the wheelchair has been included in the calculation. In the scenario described above, the modifier is informed as to the actual wheelchair weight. Where such information is available, it would be appropriate (although not required) for the modifier to include this information in calculating the reduction in the load carrying capacity. In this instance, the load carrying capacity has been decreased by more than 220 pounds, when one takes the weight of the wheelchair into account. Accordingly, the modifier should notify the purchaser of the decrease in load carrying capacity, and that the weight of the wheelchair was included in the calculation of load carrying capacity.

7. "If the platform weighs 100 pounds, and combined with additional motor vehicle modifications for the disabled person that decrease the load carrying capacity by more than 120 pounds, does that decrease the load carrying capacity by more than 220 pounds?"

In the scenario you have described, the load carrying capacity has been decreased by more than 220 pounds. The fact that specific modifications are different in nature, or even performed by different modifiers is irrelevant. Accordingly, the modifier that makes the change that causes the load carrying capacity to decrease more than 220 pounds must notify the purchaser of the decrease in load carrying capacity.

In the scenarios discussed in our answers to questions 4 thru 7, the necessity of reporting the reduction in load carrying capacity is determined by the method of attachment of the platform to the vehicle as described in our answers to questions 1 and 2 above. Please be aware that some of the modifications discussed above may present various additional problems. For example, platforms and other devices attached to the exterior of a vehicle may affect compliance with Standard No. 108, which deals with lamps and other reflective devices. Modifications that take a vehicle out of compliance with FMVSS No. 108 are not exempted under Part 595.

Enclosed please find a copy of our new brochure devoted, in part, to hitch systems. Should you require any additional information or assistance, please contact George Feygin, of my staff, (202) 366-2992 or at the address given above.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:595
d.5/8/03

ID: nht87-1.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/20/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Martin V. Chauvin

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Martin V. Chauvin Chief, Carrier Safety Bureau New York Department of Transportation Albany, N.Y. 12232

Dear Mr. Chauvin:

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 bus es 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 h ead form impact requirements of Standards No. 222 and No. 208. 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 a bsorb 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 requ ired 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 require ments 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 NHTS A 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. (I) addition, the proposed sear strength requirement was higher than that adopted in St andard No. 222.2 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 that t he 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 woul d 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 th e 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 accelerati on 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 of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its pro ducts 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 with NH TSA 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 S103(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 motor v ehicle 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 gov ernment 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 required 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 aspect of performance (i.e., passenger crash protection) as Stand ard 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 requirements than those in the FMVSS. Section 103(d) preempts high er 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 S103(d) to the extent 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.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

October 24, 1986

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, South West Washington, D. C. 20590

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 tha t 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 d ate 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 both do cuments.

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 accommodating 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 manufactured since 1977 would not be equipped with seats that can a ccommodate 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 accommodate 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.

Thanks for your help.

Sincerely,

MARTIN V. CHAUVIN, Chief Carrier Safety Bureau

October 29, 1986

Mr. William Smith Department of Transportation N.R.M.-12 Room 5320 400 7th Street Washington, D. C. 20590

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 buse s (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.

Sincerely,

MARTIN V. CHAUVIN, Chief Carrier Safety Bureau