ID: 11738BBY.BLT

Mr. Edward C. Chen
Pacific Quest International
9 Egret Lane
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656

Dear Mr. Chen:

This responds to your April 9, 1996, letter concerning a product that you are seeking to develop, called Athe BabyBelt.@ You ask whether the BabyBelt is subject to any Federal standards or safety guidelines, and also ask if we have any safety concerns about the product.

You describe the BabyBelt in a letter and sketch to the agency. I note that you had marked the word AProprietary@ on the letter. In an April 11, 1996, telephone conversation with Deirdre Fujita of my staff, you stated that you had no objections to our placing a copy of your letter and sketch in the agency=s public docket, which is a routine part of the interpretation process.

According to your letter, the BabyBelt is a device designed for use with forward-facing child restraint systems, to Asafely secure a child safety seat to the front passenger bucket style auto seat.@ The BabyBelt consists of Aan automobile grade nylon web belt (approximately 52 inches long), a positive retention buckle system (two pieces, made out of stamped steel), and an adjustable velcro attachment sleeve.@ The BabyBelt is placed through the frame of a child seat, Aand then wrapped around the back rest of the passenger seat. The belt is then tightened down to prevent the baby seat [sic] from moving in the case of sudden deceleration.@ You state that the BabyBelt is to supplement, and not replace, the vehicle=s belt system as the means for attaching a child seat to the vehicle seat. The product will be permanently labeled with a warning that the BabyBelt is supplemental to the vehicle belt system.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal

motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, Congress has established a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the information set forth in your letter.

There currently are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that directly apply to the BabyBelt. Our standard for "child restraint systems," Standard 213, applies to "any device except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less." The standard does not apply to accessory items, such as a supplemental belt that is used with a child safety seat. NHTSA also does not consider the BabyBelt to be a seat belt assembly subject to Standard 209, as it is a supplemental accessory to the existing seat belt assembly and not intended to be used alone.

While no standard applies to the BabyBelt, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. ''30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those and other manufacturer responsibilities. In the event you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety- related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

You ask us to discuss any concerns we might have about the BabyBelt. One concern we have relates to the strength of the vehicle seat back to which the BabyBelt would be attached. Vehicle manufacturers must ensure that their vehicles comply with the requirements of Standard 207, Seating Systems. Among other requirements, Standard 207 specifies strength requirements for the vehicle seat back, to minimize the likelihood of seat failure in a crash. When the BabyBelt is attached to the vehicle seat back as shown in your sketch, in the event of a crash the seat back will be subjected to forces resulting from the loading of the child seat and child occupant. In the absence of the BabyBelt, these forces are not normally imposed on the vehicle seat back, but are instead transferred to the vehicle structure through the seat belt anchorages. We suggest that you evaluate the strength of vehicle seats to ensure that they are strong enough for the loads imposed by the child seat and child occupant through the BabyBelt.

Another concern relates to where in the vehicle a child seat would have to be located to use the BabyBelt. Because the BabyBelt secures a child seat by wrapping around the back of the seat back on which the child seat is attached, the product can only be used with bucket style seats (as indicated on your sketch) or with a split back seat (as you informed Ms. Fujita). Using the BabyBelt with a bucket style seat necessitates placing the child restraint in the front seat of most passenger cars, because bucket seats are provided in the front, and not in the rear. Children are safer riding in the rear seats of vehicles than in the front seat. We recommend your instructions avoid encouraging consumers to place a child seat in the front seat if the child restraint can be placed in the rear. You might also consider informing them that, according to accident statistics, children are safer when properly restrained in the rear seating positions than in the front seating positions. Such a statement is required to be in the instructions for child restraints systems (49 CFR '571.213, S5.6.1.1).

Related to the concern discussed directly above, it appears the BabyBelt could possibly be used in the rear seat in a passenger car that has a split back seat, but even there it cannot be used in the center rear seating position. The rear center seating position is generally the safest.

Finally, you state in your letter that the BabyBelt will have a permanent warning label indicating that the belt is not to replace the vehicle=s belt system as a means of attaching a child seat to the vehicle seat. We agree that the warning is critical to reduce the likelihood that consumers may mistakenly use the BabyBelt as the primary means of attaching their child seats to the vehicle seat, and urge you to make the permanent warning clear and conspicuous. For your information, passenger vehicles manufactured since September 1, 1995, are required to have a locking mechanism for the lap belt or lap belt portion of lap and shoulder belts, to enable them Ato be capable of being used to tightly secure child safety seats without the necessity of the user=s attaching any device to the seat belt webbing, retractor, or any other part of the vehicle . . . .@ Enclosed is an October 13, 1993 final rule on this Alockability@ requirement. It appears that the requirement will address some of the same securement problems that you hope to address with the BabyBelt.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any other questions, please do not hesitate to contact Ms. Fujita at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:213 d:5/15/96

ID: 12411-1.PJA

Mr. Ronny D. Choate
C&J Enterprises
4024 Fiesta
Hobbs, NM 88240

Dear Mr. Choate:

This responds to your letter asking which Federal vehicle safety regulations you must comply with in producing your police patrol vehicle, a converted full size pickup truck. The bed of the pickup truck has been enclosed with a shell and outfitted along one side with bench seats that face sideways toward the centerline of the vehicle. These seats are outfitted with lap belts for two seating positions.

Along with general questions about Federal standards, you asked specifically about requirements for roof crush testing of the shell and installation of seat belts for the bench seats. The short answer to your question is that your altered vehicle would have to meet all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) applicable to pickup trucks, including those for roof crush testing and occupant restraints in the bench seats.

Before addressing your specific questions, I will provide a summary of our regulatory system. This agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority under 49 USC Chapter 301 to issue FMVSSs and related regulations applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve or endorse products. Vehicle and equipment manufacturers are responsible for "self-certifying" that their products comply with all applicable standards. They must also ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects.

When sold to the first purchaser (in this case, a police department), a vehicle must meet all standards applicable to pickup trucks. A vehicle manufacturer must submit certain identifying information to NHTSA in accordance with 49 CFR Part

566, Manufacturer Identification. The manufacturer must also meet the requirements of 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, and place on the truck a label with information specified in 49 CFR 567.4, including the vehicle's gross axle and gross vehicle weight ratings.

A person or business modifying a new pickup truck according to your plans would be considered an "alterer" of the truck, and therefore would have certain certification responsibilities. An alterer is a person who modifies a previously certified, new motor vehicle (i.e., before the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale). Since the modifications you are planning involve the addition of components that would not be considered "readily attachable," under 49 CFR 567.7 (copy enclosed) the alterer must affix to the vehicle an additional label with the following statement: "This vehicle was altered by (individual or corporate name) in (month and year in which alterations were completed) and as altered it conforms to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards affected by the alteration and in effect in (month, year.)" If the modifications alter the vehicle in such a manner that its original weight ratings are no longer valid, the new weight rating information must be provided.

In addition, if the alterer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety related defect caused by the conversion of the pickup, the alterer would be required to notify all owners of the defect and to provide a remedy without charge. (See sections 30118-30122 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code concerning recall and remedy requirements).

Regarding your specific question on roof crush testing of the shell over the bed of the pickup, we believe that it would not have to be tested. The test procedures in FMVSS No. 216, Roof crush resistance, are designed to test the vehicle's roof crush strength at the front corners of the roof, in the area at the top of the A-pillars (the structural members on either side of the windshield). The test device (a rigid flat plate) is inclined forward at an angle of 5 degrees and outward at an angle of 25 degrees, so a relatively low profile shell would probably not be contacted during the test, and in any case would not be providing most of the resistance. However, you should be aware that modifications to the back of the pickup cab (for example, to create a passage to the bed area) may affect the strength of the roof over the front occupant compartment. Any decrease in strength could degrade performance in the roof crush test. In this case, the alterer would not be able to rely on the original manufacturer's basis for certification that the vehicle meets FMVSS No 216.

Concerning requirements for installing seat belts for the side facing bench seat, each seat would be considered a "designated seating position" within the meaning of 571.3 since your design envisions bed mounted seats that would be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion. As the seats are to be installed as an item of original equipment before the first sale of the vehicle 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.

Your letter indicates that you plan to install lap-only (Type 1) 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.

There are a few other standards to which I would like to draw your attention. If the shell you are going to add slides into place on the back of the truck, another standard that you should pay particular attention to is FMVSS No. 126, Truck-camper loading, because the shell that you will add would be considered a "camper." This standard has requirements for the provision of information about weight and loading. If you will be increasing the weight of the vehicle, you should consider FMVSS No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars, and FMVSS No. 120, concerning tire selection and loading. Since you may be obstructing the view of the inside rearview mirror by adding the shell, you should ensure that the correct mirrors are installed pursuant to S6 of FMVSS No. 111, Rearview mirrors.

I hope this information is helpful. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet titled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment." It outlines other laws and regulations that you should be aware of. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Mr. Paul Atelsek of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:216#208#126#119#111

d:11/26/96

ID: 1983-2.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/14/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mack Trucks, Inc. -- S. Robson, Sr. Project Engineer - Vehicle Regulations

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. S. Robson Sr. Project Engineer - Vehicle Regulations Mack Trucks, Inc. P.O. Box 1761 Allentown, Pennsylvania 18105

Dear Mr. Robson:

This responds to your recent letter requesting an interpretation concerning the test procedures of Safety Standard No. 207. You ask whether a seat in a heavy duty truck must remain in its adjusted position when tested with a load of 20 times the weight of the entire seat, if the seat has been tested and remains in its adjusted position when subjected to a load of 20 times the weight of the adjustable upper section of the seat.

This question arises because of the configuration of some heavy-duty truck seats which include suspension fixtures (pedestal structures) on which the upper seat section rests. Safety Standard No. 207 requires seats to withstand a load equal to 20 times their weight and requires the seats to remain in their adjusted position during the required loading (paragraph S4.2). The upper seat sections and adjusters of your truck seats are tested on rigid test beds by the seat manufacturer and reportedly comply with the adjuster provision of S4.2. However, when you test these seats in the actual vehicle (applying 20 times the weight of the entire seat, including pedestal), the center of gravity falls on the seat adjuster and the seat does not always stay in its adjusted position during loading.

In answer to your specific question, the seat must remain in its adjusted position when tested to 20 times the weight of the entire seat, as required by paragraph S4.2 of the standard. We would agree with you, however, that with a seat configuration such as you describe, the adjusters and upper seat section would never experience a loading of 20 times the weight of the entire seat in an actual crash. Your problem appears to arise because the center of gravity of this seat happens to fall on the seat adjusters and the standard requires the loading to be applied through the center of gravity. The purpose of this loading requirement, however, is to ensure the integrity of the entire seat as it is attached to the vehicle structure.

Therefore, it is our opinion that for a pedestal seat such as you describe, a manufacturer could establish due care through a combined test procedure which would load the seat adjusters and upper seat section to only 20 times the weight of those components to determine if the seat would remain in its adjusted position, and which would load the seat as anchored to the vehicle structure to 20 times the weight of the entire seat, including the pedestal.

Please contact Hugh Oates of my staff if you have any further questions (202-426-2992).

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

April 29, 1983

Office of General Council, NHTSA

Gentlemen:

Subject: Clarification of Seat Testing Procedure FMVSS 207

Mack Trucks, Inc., a major manufacturer of heavy duty trucks is requesting an interpretation and clarification of the seat test procedure appearing in Sections 4 and 5 of 49 CFR Part 571.207 -Standard No. 207; Seating Systems.

The typical structure of the vast majority of seats used in heavy duty trucks is considerably different than those used in passenger cars. Note the comparisons on the attached sheet. In a passenger car, the fore/aft (longitudinal) adjuster is typically at the bottom of the seat between the seat and the floor of the vehicle body (see Figure 1). In a heavy duty truck, the adjuster is typically above the suspension mechanism of the seat and below the upper seat section (see Figure 2). In an actual 20g acceleration, the adjuster on the typical passenger car seat would experience the force of the mass of the entire seat being accelerated (or decelerated). However, on a typical heavy duty truck seat the adjuster would experience the force of only the upper seat section (perhaps about 40% of the total seat weight) being accelerated (or decelerated) at 20g.

Mack Trucks, Inc. is not a manufacturer of the seats used on our vehicles; they are manufactured by outside vendors. These outside vendors test and certify the seats supplied to Mack Trucks, Inc. for compliance with FMVSS's 207, 210 and 302.

However, these certifications are made with the seats mounted to rigid test beds, not in an actual cab. Mack Trucks, Inc., in exercising due care in its installation of seats, performs its own compliance testing of each new seat or seat belt mounting in an actual truck cab. Because of the basic difference in seat structure between a passenger car seat and a truck seat, it is necessary that a fixture be welded to the seat as close as possible to the actual vertical c.g. (center of gravity) of the entire seat. This fixture is used to attach the hydraulic mechanism necessary to apply the 20g load to the seat. In many instances, the vertical c.g. of the seat is approximately at the same height as the seat adjusters. When attaching this fixture to the seat, it quite often becomes necessary to attach it to brackets that are part of the upper seat section. In doing so, the 20g load for the entire seat is being transmitted through the fore/aft adjusters. As mentioned earlier, the fore/aft adjusters would not "see" this much load in an actual 20g acceleration (or deceleration). It would "see" only 20 times the weight of the upper seat section. Therefore, in testing the seat with the fixture attached to the upper seat section, the adjusters would be greatly overloaded from their design load and may not remain in their adjusted position.

The question that Mack Trucks/ Inc. poses to the NHTSA is this: Would it be considered as not meeting the test requirements of FMVSS 207 if a seat, when tested with a load of 20 times the weight of the entire seat being applied through the adjusters for the upper seat section, does not remain in its fore/aft adjusted position, even if the adjusters have been tested and certified from the vendor for compliance when subjected to the load of 20 times just the weight of the adjustable upper section of the seat?

As you can appreciate, the answer to this question will affect our current test procedures and therefore, we request a timely response. If additional information is required or you wish to discuss the problem further, please contact this office.

Very truly yours,

MACK TRUCKS, INC.

S. Robson Sr. Project Engineer - Vehicle Regulations

SR:bh

Attachment Omitted.

ID: nht87-1.73

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/29/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: John K. Liu

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. John K. Liu President, John K. Liu Enterprises, Inc. Box 544 Valley Forge, PA 19481

Dear Mr. Liu:

This responds to your letter concerning planned modifications to a used Class 8 truck/tractor. I regret the delay in this response. The answers to your questions are provided below.

It should be noted that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufactu rer to ensure that it complies with all applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

1. If we take a used Class 8 truck/tractor and modify it by adding an axle to increase the GVWR, do we have to make sure that the modified vehicle complies with the braking requirements of FMVSS 121/CFR 49:

By way of background information, new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards set forth in 49 CFR Part 571. One such standard is Safety St andard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, which applies to trucks, buses and trailers equipped with air brake systems. Vehicle manufacturers are required to certify that their new vehicles satisfy the requirements of all applicable safety standards. Also, if a vehicle is modified prior to first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards a ffected by the alteration.

A person who modifies a used vehicle is not required to attach a certification label. However, manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair businesses are prohibited by section 108(a)12)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act from knowingly renderi ng 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 motor vehicle safety standard. Thus, in adding an axle to a used truck/tractor to increase its G VWR, you must ensure that you do not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with Safety Standard No. 121. I have enclosed an interpretation letter of July 20, 1977, to the Truck Body and Equipment Association in which the agency discu sses in more detail how section 108(a)(2)(A) applies to the installation of additional axles in a used vehicle.

2. Do we have to revise the nameplate or install a new nameplate giving the new GVWR and axle ratings:

Under 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, manufacturers of motor vehicles are required to affix a certification label to their vehicles. The label is required to specify, among other things, the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) and the gross axle weight ra ting for each axle. See S 567.4(g). In addition, Safety Standard Ho. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, requires that specifications concerning tire and rim selection be placed on either the certification label or a separate tire information label. See S S5.3.2.

As indicated above, persons who alter certified vehicles prior to first sale are required to certify that their vehicles, as altered, conform to all applicable safety standards. Such alterers are required by Part 567 to leave the original certification l abel on the vehicle and add an additional label. See S 567.7. If the gross vehicle weight rating or any of the gross axle weight ratings of the vehicle as altered are different from those shown on the original certification label, the modified values mus t be specified. See 567.7(b).

Persons who modify used vehicles are not required to attach a certification label. However, in adding an axle to a used truck/tractor to increase its GVWR, you must ensure that you do not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with Sa fety Standard No. 120. We encourage you to supplement the original certification label and/or tire information label by an additional label to reflect changes in gross vehicle weight rating, axle ratings, and tire and rim specifications, to avoid confusi on on the part of vehicle users.

3. Do we have to adopt a new VIN (vehicle identification number)?

The answer to this question is no. Safety Standard No. 115 requires that manufacturers of new motor vehicles provide vehicle identification numbers. The vehicle identification number is not affected by the subsequent modification of the vehicle.

4. Do we have to tell a buyer that he is buying a modified vehicle:

NHTSA does not have any regulations requiring sellers of used vehicles to inform buyers about axle modifications.

Our answers to your questions cover the Federal regulations and laws administered by NHTSA. I have also enclosed a general information sheet which provides additional information concerning our regulations.

You should be aware that by adding an axle you are considered a manufacturer under the Vehicle Safety Act and subject to its provisions concerning safety-related defects. Under the Act, manufacturers must notify purchasers of safety-related defects and r emedy such defects without charge. Our engineering staff reviewed your plans and noted that in some instances the addition of an axle to a vehicle could constitute a safety-related defect, by making the vehicle unsafe for anticipated usage. You should ca refully analyze this issue for the vehicle in question. Among other things, you should consider whether, as modified, the overall vehicle structure, including the truck's frame, will be able to adequately accommodate the load distribution resulting from the additional axle and/or the higher GVWR, throughout the truck's anticipated length of service.

You may wish to contact the Federal Highway Administration's Office of Motor Carrier Standards concerning whether any of its regulations are relevant to your planned modifications. Also, with respect to Question 4, you may wish to contact the Federal Tra de Commission concerning whether it has any applicable regulations. Finally, a local attorney can advise you concerning the state law implications of your plans.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

Dec. 10,1986 NHTSA Rm 5219 400 7th St. SW Washington DC 20590

Att: Ms Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

Dear Ms Jones,

Please render an opinion in the following matter:

1) If we take a used Class 8 truck/tractor and modify it by adding an axle to increase the GVWR, do we have to make sure that the modified vehicle complies with the braking requirements of FMVSS 121/CFR 49?

2) Do we have to revise the nameplate or install a new nameplate giving the new GVWR and axle ratings?

3) Do we have to adopt a new VIN(Vehicle identification number )?

4) Do we have to tell a buyer that he is buying a modified vehicle?

You may call us if you wish, since we would like your response as soon as feasible.

Thanking you in advance for your assistance. I remain

Sincerely yours,

John K. Liu. President JKL/sh

ID: nht76-2.46

DATE: 01/14/76

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

TO: Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of December 8, 1975, asking four questions, the answers to which would provide an interpretation of Standard No. 108 with respect to separation distance of a turn signal lamp from the nearest edge of a Type 2 headlamp.

SAE Standard J588d, Turn Signal Lamps, June 1966, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, requires in pertinent part that "The optical axis (filament center) of the front turn signal lamp shall be at least 4 inches from the inside diameter of the retaining ring of the headlamp unit providing the lower beam . . . ." We agree with your opinion that the reference to filament center may have been added because of the difficulty of determining the location of the optical axis in certain instances. In the vast majority of cases, however the filament center is on the optical axis, and the addition of the provision assists in determining compliance with the requirement.

You have asked:

"1. Is the filament center always to be taken as the center of the optical axis?"

The answer to this question is no. In some instances the filament center will not be on the optical axis. When this is the case the standard is ambiguous as to whether distance is measured from the optical axis or the filament center. While we prefer the optical axis, under the present wording either must be viewed as legally supportable.

"2. Is the center of the emitted light always to be taken as the center of the optical axis?"

The answer is yes.

"3. If the answers to the above two questions are no, does the vehicle manufacturer have the choice as to which method is most favorable to him?"

Yes, because of the ambiguity the manufacturer may choose either the optical axis or filament center as the point of measurement.

"4. What is the optical axis of a two- or three- compartment lamp?"

The optical axis of a multi-compartment lamp is the center of the light emitted by the array, treated as a single complex light source. The "half-value" method you described in your letter is a valid method of finding the optical axis of a complex light source as well as that of a simple one.

Finally you have asked whether, if we agree with the need for clarification, the letter can be considered a petition for rulemaking or whether a formal petition should be submitted.

We agree that clarification is needed and accordingly plan to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking in the near future.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

December 8, 1975

Frank Berndt -- Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

When inspecting 1976 passenger cars, we discovered a problem in measuring the distance of a front turn signal lamp from the nearest edge of the Type 2 headlamp. Federal Standard No. 108 requires that turn signal lamps meet the 4-inch minimum spacing in SAE J588d. Standard No. 108 also permits lamps to be mounted closer than the 4-inch interval if they emit 2-1/2 times the minimum candlepower otherwise specified.

SAE J588d clearly states that the distance shall be measured from the optical axis of the turn signal lamp to the inside diameter of the retaining ring from the headlamp providing the low beam. It then, unfortunately, makes the requirement ambiguous by a parenthetical reference to the filament center.

The SAE wording was satisfactory when it was adopted a number of years ago, because lamp designs then had the optical axis coincident with the filament. More recent designs have kept the filament 4 inches from the headlamp but have used the ambiguity as a loophole to allow the optical axis to be unreasonably close to the headlamp.

The 4-inch separation was adopted by SAE after a number of complaints about the lack of effectiveness of some turn signals that were snuggled up against the headlamps. The brightness of the adjacent low beam headlamps washed out the turn signals so they would not attract an oncoming driver's attention unless he was looking almost directly at them. The SAE Lighting Committee made nighttime demonstrations of turn signals at various distances from the headlamps in view of a proposal that the edges of the lamps be separated by a minimum distance such as 2 or 2 inches. A jury-type judgment indicated that the present requirement was barely acceptable usually and would allow vehicle manufacturers sufficient design freedom in placing the lamps on vehicles.

The attached drawing illustrates the absurdity of the "filament center" interpretation for modern-day turn signals (and incidentally the skill and ingenuity of lamp designers). Figure I shows a current lamp with a filament center meeting the 4-inch requirement but with an optical center much closer to the headlamp. Figure II illustrates a left-hand version of the same lamp with a filament center that does not meet the 4-inch requirement but with an optical center farther removed from the headlamp. The second lamp provides a more effective signal from an opposing driver's viewpoint, but it would be illegal if measured from the filament center.

The filament center reference apparently was added to the SAE standard because of an assumed difficulty in determining the location of the optical axis. An axis of any object usually passes through a point of symmetry. In the case of a symmetrical light beam meeting turn signal photometric requirements, the optical axis falls in a plane on either side of which is one-half of the total light output. The optical axis is easily located by measuring the intensity of the lamp at HV and then sliding an opaque card with a straight edge across the face of the lens until the photometer reading is one-half the HV value.

In view of the foregoing discussion, we would appreciate your interpretation of Standard No. 108 with respect to the following questions:

1. Is the filament center always to be taken as the center of the optical axis?

2. Is the center of the emitted light always to be taken as the center of the optical axis?

3. If the answers to the above two questions are no, does the vehicle manufacturer have the choice of which method is most favorable to him?

4. What is the optical axis of a two- or three-compartment lamp?

If you agree with the need for clarification, can this letter be considered a basis for your initiating a proposed change in Standard No. 108 or must this Department submit a formal petition for a rulemaking?

Very truly yours,

WARREN M. HEATH -- Commander, Enforcement Services Division

Enclosure

cc: Lou Owen, NHTSA; Francis Armstrong, NHTSA

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 86-2.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/01/86 EST

FROM: Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Dipl.-Ing. F. Vapenicek -- Chief of Machinery Plant, Nova Hut Klementa Gottwalda

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 2/17/86 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Ralph Trimarchi (Std. 110; Std. 119; Std. 120; Std. 109)

TEXT:

AIR MAIL Dipl.-Ing. F. Vapenicek Chief of Machinery Plant Nova Hut Klementa Gottwalda n.p., 707 02 Ostrava 7 CZECHOSLOVAKIA

Dear Mr. Vapenicek:

This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars. You stated that the dimensions of your rims comply with dimensional specifications of the European Tyre and Rim Technical Organization. You asked whether disc wheels provided with certain information can be regarded as complying with the requirements of U.S. standards. Your question is responded to below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

You provided the following example of your disc wheel marking on the attachment face of the disc:

(b) 8,0-20 (c) DOT-E (d) symbol of the manufacturer (e) 6 87

You stated that the information listed in (b) and (d) also appears on every part of your multipiece rim and that height and depth of the marking meets the requirements of S5.2 of Standard No. 120.

Section S5.2 states: . . . each rim or, at the option of the manufacturer in the case of a singlepiece wheel, wheel disc shall be marked with the information listed in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this paragraph . . . . The information listed in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this paragraph shall appear on the weather side. In the case of rims of multipiece construction, the information listed in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this paragraph shall appear on the rim base and the information listed in paragraphs (b) and (d) of this paragraph shall also appear on each other part of the rim.

Your letter indicates that you plan to place your disc wheel marking "on the attachment face of disc." While it is not clear what you mean by the term attachment face of disc, I would like to note several requirements specified by section S5.2 for marking location. First, the marking must be placed on the rim, except that for singlepiece wheels manufacturers have the option of placing the marking on the wheel disc. Thus, assuming that your rim is a multipiece rim, the marking must be placed on the rim rather than the disc. Second, the information listed in paragraphs (a) through (c) must be placed on the weather side. Section S4 provides a definition for the "weather side" of a rim. Third, for multipiece rims, the information listed in paragraphs (a) through (e) must appear on the rim base, and the information listed in paragraphs (b) and (d) must also appear on each other part of the rim. Section 54 provides a definition for "rim base."

Your sample disc wheel marking links by a hyphen the symbol "DOT" required by S5.2 (c) and the designation "E" required by S5.2(a). The symbol DOT constitutes a certification by the manufacturer of the rim that the rim complies with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards, while the designation E indicates the source of the rim's published nominal dimensions, i.e., in your case, the European Tyre and Rim Technical Organization. While NHTSA expects the information provided in paragraphs (a), (b) , and (c) to be grouped together, we do not recommend linking "DOT" and "E" by a hyphen. These symbols provide two different types of information, and the inclusion of a hyphen could cause confusion.

The information required by S5.2(b) is "(t)he rim size designation, and in the case of multipiece rims, the rim type designation. For example: 20 x 5.50, or 20 x 5.5. " Your sample disc wheel marking is 8,O-20. I note first that the rim size designation (defined in S4 as "rim diameter and width") should use the symbol "x" between the width and diameter, as indicated by S5.2(b)'s example. Moreover, for multipiece rims, S5.2(b) requires both the rim size designation and the rim type designation. S4 defines the term "rim type designation" as "the industry or manufacturer's designation for a rim by style or code." If your disc wheel is a multipiece rim, the disc wheel marking should include the rim type designation.

S5.2(c) requires a designation that identifies the manufacturer of the rim by name, trademark, or symbol. Your letter indicates that you plan to use a symbol. I note that, as discussed in an interpretation letter dated February 17, 1986 (copy enclosed), 49 CFR Part 551 requires rim manufacturers to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of process in this country. Among other things, the designation of agent must contain information concerning marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the manufacturer's wheels and rims that do not bear its name.

The information in your sample disc wheel marking under (e) is consistent with one of the examples provided in S5.2 (e) to indicate the month and year of manufacturer.

Sincerely,

Erika Z Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure (see 2/17/86 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Ralph Trimarchi)

Dear Sirs,

We take the liberty of asking you for your advice concerning the disc wheels. As the requirements of S571,120 differ from those on windshields or tires when symbol DOT is concerned we are not quite sure whether our disc wheels marking meets the requirements. We would like to mention that dimensions of our rims comply with dimensional specifications required by the EUROPEAN TYRE AND RIM TECHNICAL ORGANIZATION.

An example of our disc wheel marking on the attachment face of disc (according to S 571.120):

(b) 8,0-20 (c) DOT-E (d) symbol of the manufacturer (e) 6 87

The information listed in (b) and (d) also appears on every part of our multipiece rim as specified in S 571.120 S5.2. Height and depth of the marking meet the requirements of S 571.120 S5.2.

Be so kind, please, and let us know whether a disc wheel provided with the information (b), (c), (d) and (e) above can be regarded as complying with the requirements of U.S. standards.

We are looking forward to hearing from you soon.

Yours sincerely,

Dipl.-Ing. F. Vapenicek Chief of Machinery Plant

ID: 9508

Mr. Carl Haywood
Operations Manager
Emergency Response Specialists
2251 Happy Top Road
Morris, Alabama 35116

Dear Mr. Haywood:

This responds to your letter of December 21, 1993, requesting information about seating requirements for emergency response units you are designing to respond to chemical spills. The response units are tractor trailer combinations which can be driven in and out of the cargo bay of C-130 Hercules aircraft which are used to transport the units to the site. You further describe the response units as follows:

Our response units are designed to transport all six (6) of our response team members, for over the highway transportation three (3) of our team members will ride in the tractor and the remaining three (3) will ride in the trailer. During air transportation all six (6) team members will ride in the trailer. By providing seating with lap and shoulder restraints in the response unit for both ground and air transportation we eliminate the need for special crew cabins for air transportation, and extra vehicles for ground transportation. This conserves the limited space available on the C-130 allowing us to carry all the equipment needed to respond effectively to large scale chemical releases.

You requested information on the regulation of the seating in the response units. You have already contacted several Department of Transportation agencies, including the Federal Aviation Administration.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. Our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., Safety Act), to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act defines the term "motor vehicle" as follows:

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.

If a vehicle is a "motor vehicle" under the definition, then the vehicle must comply will all applicable safety standards, including those related to seating and occupant restraint. However, if a vehicle is not a motor vehicle under this definition, then the vehicle need not comply with the agency's safety standards because such a vehicle is outside the agency's scope of authority.

Applying this definition to the response units, NHTSA believes the response units are motor vehicles within the meaning of the Safety Act. In determining whether a vehicle which has both on-road and off-road uses is a motor vehicle, the agency looks at whether the vehicle uses public roads on a necessary and recurring basis. Applying this criteria to the response units, we believe that the response units have a primary function of highway transportation of personnel and equipment to the chemical spill site.

NHTSA's safety standards specify different requirements for different types of motor vehicles. Therefore, in order to determine the occupant seating requirements for the response units, it is necessary to determine how these vehicles are classified under our regulations. NHTSA defines a "truck" as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment." The tractor portion of the response unit has seating capacity for at least three passengers, but its primary use appears to be to draw the trailer. Therefore, it appears that this vehicle is a "truck" for the purpose of Federal regulations.

NHTSA defines a "trailer" as "a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle." NHTSA believes the trailer portion of the response units would be considered trailers for the purpose of Federal regulations.

NHTSA has exercised its authority under the Safety Act to issue four safety standards relevant to occupant seating and restraint: 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.

Standard No. 207 establishes strength and other performance requirements for all "occupant seats" in passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks, and for the driver's seats in buses, except that the requirements do not apply to side-facing seats. Therefore, all "occupant seats" in tractor portion of the response units must meet the requirements of Standard No. 207. Standard No. 207 does not apply to trailers, therefore, the seats in the trailer portion of the response units are not subject to the requirements of Standard No. 207.

Standard No. 208 specifies occupant protection requirements based on vehicle type and seating position within the vehicle. Different requirements also apply depending on the GVWR of the vehicle. The discussion which follows is limited to vehicles with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds. As explained below, trucks are required to have, at a minimum, a lap belt at every designated seating position. As with Standard No. 207, Standard No. 208 does not apply to trailers. Therefore, the seats in the trailer portion of the response units are not required to have any type of safety belt at any seating position.

The requirements for trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more are contained in section S4.3 of Standard No. 208. Vehicle manufacturers have a choice of two options for providing occupant crash protection in trucks manufactured on or after September 1, 1990. Option 1 requires vehicle manufacturers to provide an automatic protection system at all seating positions that meets the frontal and lateral crash protection and rollover requirements. Option 2 requires vehicle manufacturers to install lap or lap/shoulder belts at every seating position. If a manufacturer chooses to comply with Option 2, the lap belt or pelvic portion of a lap/shoulder belt must have either an emergency locking retractor or an automatic locking retractor.

Standard No. 209 sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. This standard applies to all seat belt assemblies as separate items of motor vehicle equipment, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as replacements. Thus, if seat belts are voluntarily installed at the seats in the trailer portion of the response units, the seat belts would be required to be comply with Standard No. 209.

Standard No. 210 establishes strength and location requirements for seat belt anchorages installed in vehicles, where seat belts are required by Standard No. 208. Therefore, anchorages are required for the lap belts in the tractor, but are not required in the trailer.

Although all of the safety standards cited in this letter do not apply to each seating position in your proposed emergency response unit, the agency nevertheless encourages additional consideration and application of those performance requirements that are appropriate to a safe design.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#207#208#209#210 D:3/17/94

ID: 8240a

Trooper Bob Dittert
Texas Department of Public Safety
10110 NW Freeway
Houston, TX 77092

Dear Mr. Dittert:

This responds to your inquiry about how the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards affect State laws applicable to the same aspect of performance. You were particularly interested in our requirements for window tinting. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. After providing background information, I will answer the specific questions raised in your letter.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that establish specific levels of safety performance for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Standard 205, "Glazing Materials," issued under the Safety Act, has requirements that limit the amount of tinting that can be placed on windows in new vehicles. The standard currently imposes a minimum level of light transmittance of 70% in all areas requisite for driving visibility (which includes all windows on passenger cars). The primary purpose of this requirement is to ensure adequate visibility through the windows, thereby reducing the risk of a motor vehicle crash.

Under 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act, no person shall manufacture or sell a new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment that does not meet all applicable FMVSS's. NHTSA tests vehicles and equipment sold to consumers for compliance with the FMVSS's and investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a noncompliance or safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge. A manufacturer of a noncomplying product is also subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each noncomplying item it produces.

The prohibition in 108(a)(1)(A) against selling complying vehicles and items of equipment does not apply to a vehicle or item of equipment after its first sale to a consumer. However, 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act applies to modifications made to new and used vehicles by motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses. That section provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

Please note that the "render inoperative" provision of section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to actions by individual vehicle owners.

I would now like to apply this background to the particular questions raised in your letter.

Question One: "Are the CFRs law and enforceable only by federal agents?"

NHTSA's regulations and safety standards are set forth in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). These regulations and standards apply without State ratification to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA enforces these regulations and safety standards.

Question Two: "Are the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards law and only enforceable on new manufactured vehicles?"

The FMVSS's apply to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment, and not to used vehicles or equipment. NHTSA may bring enforcement actions against manufacturers of new vehicles and new items of equipment that do not comply with applicable FMVSS's. NHTSA also enforces the "render inoperative" provision of the Safety Act against commercial entitites that modify new or used vehicles in a manner that violates the "render inoperative" provision. We also note that NHTSA can investigate safety defects in new or used vehicles or items of equipment.

Question Three: "Are states allowed to enact legislation that allows less stringent standards than the CFRs?"

We understand you to ask this in the context of window tinting requirements, since elsewhere in your letter you ask whether a Texas law that allows light transmittance of 35 percent violates Federal law.

Your question relates to 103(d) of the Safety Act, which states:

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard ... is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard.

Whether State law is preempted under 103(d) depends in part on the conduct that is regulated by that law. Federal safety standards regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. State law would be preempted to the extent it established performance requirements applicable to the manufacture of vehicles or glazing that differ from those in Standard 205. State law would also be preempted if it purported to allow the manufacture or sale of glazing materials or new vehicles containing glazing material that did not meet the specifications of Standard 205.

As stated above, Federal law also regulates modifications made to new and used vehicles by motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses (108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act). The effect of 108(a)(2)(A) is to impose limits on the tinting practices of businesses listed in 108(a)(2)(A). These businesses may not install tinting on new or used vehicles that reduces the light transmittance of windows covered by Standard 205 to a level below the Federal requirement of 70 percent. A state law would be preempted if it purported to allow modifications violating Standard 205 by these named businesses. Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to actions by individual vehicle owners.

Because Federal safety standards regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, state requirements applicable to the registration and inspection of motor vehicles after the first sale to a consumer are not preempted merely because they are not identical to the Federal safety standards, as long as they do not interfere with the achievement of the purposes of Federal law. Therefore, a state could permit the registration of a vehicle which had been altered by its owner by the addition of window tinting, even when the tinting reduces the light transmittance below the Federal standard. However, the state cannot legitimize conduct - the rendering inoperative of glazing by commercial businesses installing window tinting - that is illegal under Federal law.

Question 4: "Concerning the installation of non-complying automotive equipment, i.e., sun screening, taillamp `black out' lenses, neon license plate lamps, etc., is this allowed by the owner but prohibited installation by a commercial entity?"

You are correct that 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act regulates the modifications of only the commercial entities listed in that section of the Act, and that the Safety Act does not prohibit an individual from modifying his or her vehicle such that it no longer complies with the FMVSS's. The States may have requirements governing the modification of a vehicle by individual owners.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:205#VSA d:5/5/93

ID: nht90-1.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/09/90

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

TO: ALLEN R. ANDRLIK -- AUSTRALIAN TRADE COMMISSION AUSTRALIAN CONSULATE GENERAL

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 08/28/89 FROM ALLEN R. ANDRLIK -- AUSTRALIAN TRADE COMMISSION TO DEE FUJITA -- NHTSA; OCC 3896

TEXT: Dear Mr. Andrlik:

This responds to your letter asking about Federal regulations that would apply to the "Milford Cargo Barrier" that Milford Industries, an Australian company, manufactures. Your enclosure indicates that the barrier is a type of wire screen that is genera lly anchored to the sides and floor of a vehicle directly behind the front seat(s). The barrier is intended to protect occupants in a crash from impact with objects carried in the rear of cars, trucks and vans.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new moto r vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with our Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Instead, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicl e Safety Act (copy enclosed), each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the information pro vided in your letter.

There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that is directly applicable to the product you describe. Our standard for glazing materials (Standard No. 205) applies only to interior barries or partitions that contain glazing, and not to wi re screens.

However, there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect the manufacture and sale of Milford's barriers. If the barrier were installed as original equipment on a new motor vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer would be required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable safety standards. Installation of the barrier could affect a vehicle's compliance with various safety standards. For example, installation of the barrier could affect complianc e with Standard No. 201, Occupant

2 Protection in Interior Impact, which sets energy-absorption requirements for the back of the front seat, to protect occupants in the rear seat who may be thrown forward in a crash. The barrier could also affect compliance with Standard No. 208, Occupa nt Crash Protection, (safety belts and other restraint systems), and Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (driver field of view). Copies of each of these standards are enclosed.

If the barrier were added to a previously certified new motor vehicle (e.g., a completed van) prior to the vehicle's first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle may have certification responsibilities as an "alterer" under 49 CFR @ 567.7. This would occur if the installation of the barrier constituted something other than a "readily attachable" component (such as tires or rim assemblies). To determine whether installation of the barrier involves a readily attachable component, the agency considers factors such as the intricacy of installation, and the need for special expertise in installing the barrier.

The advertising brochure you enclosed states: "Expert installation available Australia wide." It also indicates that the barriers are "designed . . . to the individual dimensions" of the consumer's motor vehicle and are "load rated" (which we understand to mean that the barrier and its attachment are capable of withstanding a rated load). These factors appear to indicate that a degree of special expertise and analysis are needed to install the barrier so that it will perform in the manner intended. In light of these considerations, the barrier appears to be something other than a readily attachable component under @ 567.7. (If Milford would like to send us information indicating otherwise, we would be happy to review it.)

If the cargo barrier were installed in a new or used vehicle by a commercial business such as a motor vehicle dealer or repair shop, the installer would be subject to Safety Act considerations affecting the installation. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act states: "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 applicabl e Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . ." Thus, the commercial installer would have to make sure that the addition of the apparatus would not negatively affect the compliance of any component or design on a vehicle with applicable Federal safety s tandards (such as Standards 111, 201 and 208). Section 109 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation of @ 108.

In addition to the FMVSS considerations, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment should also be aware that they are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to m otor vehicle safety. I have enclosed a copy of our regulation for defect responsibility of motor vehicle equipment manufacturers (49 CFR Part 579) for your information. Any manufacturer which fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 per violation.

3

In addition to the regulations described above, we also bring to your attention a procedural rule which applies to all manufacturers subject to the regulations of this agency. Subpart D of 49 CFR Part 551, Procedural Rules, requires all manufacturers he adquartered outside of the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of all process, notices, orders and decisions. This designation should be mailed to the Chief Counsel, National Highw ay Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590, and must include the following information:

1. A certification that the designation of agent is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate-by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;

2. The full name, principal place of business and mailing address of the manufacturer;

3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear its name;

4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer;

5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed, which may be an individual, a firm or a United States Corporation; and,

6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent.

In addition, the designation must be signed by a person with authority to appoint the agent. The signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his or her signature.

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

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURES

ID: nht94-7.37

DATE: March 17, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Carl Haywood -- Operations Manager, Emergency Response Specialists (Morris, Alabama)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/21/93 from Carl Haywood to John Womack

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of December 21, 1993, requesting information about seating requirements for emergency response units you are designing to respond to chemical spills. The response units are tractor trailer combinations which can be driven in and out of the cargo bay of C-130 Hercules aircraft which are used to transport the units to the site. You further describe the response units as follows:

Our response units are designed to transport all six (6) of our response team members, for over the highway transportation three (3) of our team members will ride in the tractor and the remaining three (3) will ride in the trailer. During air transportation all six (6) team members will ride in the trailer. By providing seating with lap and shoulder restraints in the response unit for both ground and air transportation we eliminate the need for special crew cabins for air transportation, and extra vehicles for ground transportation.

This conserves the limited space available on the C-130 allowing us to carry all the equipment needed to respond effectively to large scale chemical releases.

You requested information on the regulation of the seating in the response units. You have already contacted several Department of Transportation agencies, including the Federal Aviation Administration.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. Our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 et seq., Safety Act), to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act defines the term "motor vehicle" as follows:

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.

If a vehicle is a "motor vehicle" under the definition, then the vehicle must comply with all applicable safety standards, including those related to seating and occupant restraint. However, if a vehicle is not a motor vehicle under this definition, then the vehicle need not comply with the agency's safety standards because such a vehicle is outside the agency's scope of authority.

Applying this definition to the response units, NHTSA believes the response units are motor vehicles within the meaning of the Safety Act. In determining whether a vehicle which has both on-road and off-road uses is a motor vehicle, the agency looks at whether the vehicle uses public roads on a necessary and

recurring basis. Applying this criteria to the response units, we believe that the response units have a primary function of highway transportation of personnel and equipment to the chemical spill site.

NHTSA's safety standards specify different requirements for different types of motor vehicles. Therefore, in order to determine the occupant seating requirements for the response units, it is necessary to determine how these vehicles are classified under our regulations. NHTSA he fines a "truck" as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment." The tractor portion of the response unit has seating capacity for at least three passengers, but its primary use appears to be to draw the trailer. Therefore, it appears that this vehicle is a "truck" for the purpose of Federal regulations.

NHTSA defines a "trailer" as "a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle." NHTSA believes the trailer portion of the response units would be considered trailers for the purpose of Federal regulations.

NHTSA has exercised its authority under the Safety Act to issue four safety standards relevant to occupant seating and restraint: 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.

Standard No. 207 establishes strength and other performance requirements for all "occupant seats" in passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks, and for the driver's seats in buses, except that the requirements do not apply to side-facing seats. Therefore, all "occupant seats" in tractor portion of the response units must meet the requirements of Standard No. 207. Standard No. 207 does not apply to trailers, therefore, the seats in the trailer portion of the response units are not subject to the requirements of Standard No. 207.

Standard No. 208 specifies occupant protection requirements based on vehicle type and seating position within the vehicle. Different requirements also apply depending on the GVWR of the vehicle. The discussion which follows is limited to vehicles with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds. As explained below, trucks are required to have, at a minimum, a lap belt at every designated seating position. As with Standard No. 207, Standard No. 208 does not apply to trailers. Therefore, the seats in the trailer portion of the response units are not required to have any type of safety belt at any seating position.

The requirements for trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more are contained in section S4.3 of Standard No. 208. Vehicle manufacturers have a choice of two options for providing occupant crash protection in trucks manufactured on or after September 1, 1990. Option 1 requires vehicle manufacturers to provide an automatic protection system at all seating positions that meets the frontal and lateral crash protection and rollover requirements. Option 2 requires vehicle manufacturers to install lap or lap/shoulder belts at every seateral Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 or a matter concerning the preemption of State statutes by Standard No. 108.

Under the statutes and regulations we administer, the applicable law is 15 U.S.C. Section 1397 (a)(2)(A) . This Section states in pertinent part:

"No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor d applies to all seat belt assemblies as separate items of motor vehicle equipment, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as replacements. Thus, if seat belts are voluntarily installed at the seats in the trailer portion of the response units, the seat belts would be required to comply with Standard No. 209.

Standard No. 210 establishes strength and location requirements for seat belt anchorages installed in vehicles, where seat belts are required by Standard No. 208. Therefore, anchorages are required for the lap belts in the tractor, but are not required in the trailer.

Although all of the safety standards cited in this letter do not apply to each seating position in your proposed emergency response unit, the agency nevertheless encourages additional consideration and application of those performance requirements that are appropriate to a safe design.

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