ID: nht78-2.12

DATE: 08/29/78

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

TO: Cibie Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in belated reply to your letter of December 15, 1977, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. Your request concerned the legality of installation on motor vehicles of remote manual or of automatic headlamp aiming equipment.

If a headlamp assembly meets the requirements of Standard No. 108 when installed with or without auxiliary means of aiming, we consider the assembly to be in conformance. Your device does not appear to impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment within the prohibition of S4.1.3, and either device that you described would apparently provide an additional safeguard against glare when the rear of the vehicle is heavily loaded.

SINCERELY,

CIBIE CORPORATION

Office of the Chief Counsel N.H.T.S.A.

December 15 1977

Dear Sir

Headlamp "Aim Correction"

Cibie Corporation is a Delaware Corporation, the American subsidiary of CIBIE PROJECTEURS of Bobigny, France. Cibie Projecteurs manufacturers automotive lighting equipment of every description: headlamps, fog and spotlamps, combination lamps, etc. In addition, headlamp aim correction units are manufactured for passenger cars.

In Europe, these aim correction units are referred to as headlamp levellers; this terminology may lead to confusion with suspension levellers in the United States, hence I have coined the name "aim correction units" in the absence of a recognized term.

The aim correction units manufactured by Cibie are of two types: manual and automatic. Both types are additional to the normal aim features of the headlamp system to which they are applied. That is to say, the correct aim of the headlamps is first established by means of a screwdriver adjustment made externally to the headlamp by a person standing at the front of the car. (Sometimes the screwdriver is not required, where the slotted-head screw has a finger-tip knob molded onto it, allowing the basic aim to be made with the fingers directly.)

The movement of the headlamps that is applied by the aim correction units to the basic correct adjustment is in a downward sense only, to compensate for a full luggage load in the trunk. Thus, the aim correction units cannot of themselves produce dazzle; however, failure by the driver to take advantage of them can allow dazzle to persist (due to luggage load) that could otherwise be removed by their use.

Dealing with the two types of aim correction unit, taking the manual type first: there are two types of manual aim correction unit, two-position and variable.

The earlier two-position type incorporates a cam in the headlamp mounting itself. A small lever, moved by hand, produces a downward correction of the headlamp aim; this lever is accessible by raising the engine hood of the car.

The later variable type incorporates a small piston unit and control knob under the instrument panel, operable from the driving seat. Hydraulic tubing connects the piston unit to a slave unit on each headlamp, lowering the headlamp aim by any desired amount within the design limits of movement. Again, the aim correction is downwards only.

The automatic aim correction unit incorporates hydraulic sensors on the vehicle suspension which, by means of hydraulic tubing and the same slave units, correct the headlamp aim downward without any action on the part of the driver. In the case of the automatic system, headlamp aim is also corrected dynamically for vehicle pitching movements as well as statically for luggage load.

These three types of aim correction unit have been in use in Europe for many years. The automatic unit is currently standard equipment on the Lancia Beta.

Council Directive 76/756 of the European Common Market now requires passenger cars to be fitted with headlamp aim correction units, operable from the driver's seat or automatic. Thus, it is entirely possible that European passenger car manufacturers may wish to export to the United States models of cars in which the European headlamps have been replaced with SAE sealed beams, in accordance with FMVSS 108, but still retaining the aim correction feature, whether manual or automatic.

Cibie Projecteurs, as manufacturer of the aim correction units, would wish to be in a position to advise its customers as to the eligibility of these units for importation into the United States.

Therefore, Cibie Corporation requests a legal opinion as to whether a passenger car that complies in all respects with FMVSS 108, but in addition is equipped with manual or automatic aim correction as described above, would be deemed still in compliance with FMVSS 108.

Inasmuch as the application of the Council Directive takes effect during 1978, the earliest possible answer to this enquiry would be greatly appreciated.

H J T YOUNG Vice President - Technical Affairs

ID: 24394_Gen_TestingLabs

Mr. Alan Aylor
President
General Testing Laboratories, Inc.
1623 Leedstown Rd.
Colonial Beach, VA 22443

Dear Mr. Aylor:

This responds to your letter dated May 1, 2002, which you e-mailed to our office on May 7, asking six questions about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 225, "Child Restraint Anchorage Systems" (49 CFR 571.225). This letter also follows up on a May 22, 2002 telephone conversation between you and Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff. Each of your questions is restated below, followed by our response.

BACKGROUND

On March 5, 1999, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) published a final rule establishing Standard No. 225. The rule required vehicle manufacturers to equip vehicles with new child restraint anchorage systems that are standardized and independent of the vehicle seat belts. Each new system has two lower anchorages and one tether anchorage.

A number of manufacturers submitted petitions for reconsideration of various aspects of the new standard, including the strength requirements for the anchorage system. In response to concerns of several of the petitioners about leadtime for and the stringency of the anchorage strength and other requirements in the March 1999 final rule, NHTSA permitted vehicle manufacturers to meet alternative requirements during an interim period (64 FR 47566). Manufacturers were permitted to meet either: (a) the requirements in the March 1999 final rule; or (b) alternative Canadian requirements for tether anchorages and, for lower anchorages, requirements in a draft standard developed by a working group of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). NHTSA later extended that period until September 1, 2004 (65 FR 46628).[1]

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS

Question 1.  S4.1 states: "Each tether anchorage and each child restraint anchorage system installed, either voluntarily or pursuant to this standard, in any new vehicle manufactured on or after September 1, 1999, shall comply with the configuration, location and strength requirements of this standard. " Does the phrase "any new vehicle" refer to all vehicles regardless of type and gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR)?

Answer:  The answer is Standard No. 225 does not apply to tether anchorages and child restraint anchorage systems installed in vehicles not listed in the Application section of the standard (S2). (This issue was discussed in the agencys August 31, 1999 response to petitions for reconsideration. 64 FR at 47578.) Anchorage systems voluntarily installed in vehicles not listed in S2 are not subject to the standard=s requirements. They will, of course, be subject to our defect authority.

Question 2.  If tether anchorages and/or child restraint anchorage systems are voluntarily installed in side facing or rear facing designated seating positions, do the requirements in S4.1 apply? If so, in what directions should the test loads be applied?

Answer:  Our answer is the requirements of Standard No. 225 would apply to anchorages installed in side- or rear-facing seating positions in vehicles subject to the standard. The standard requires only forward-facing rear designated seating positions to have the anchorage systems (S4). Side- or rear-facing seating positions are not factored into the determination of how many anchorage systems a vehicle must have. However, if a manufacturer voluntarily installs a tether anchorage or a child restraint anchorage system in a side- or rear-facing designated seating position in a vehicle subject to the standard, the configuration, location, marking, and strength requirements apply (S4.1). The loads for the strength test would be applied (1) along a longitudinal axis toward the front of the vehicle for LATCH anchorages installed in side-facing seating positions, and (2) along a longitudinal axis toward the rear of the vehicle for LATCH anchorages installed in rear-facing seating positions. The loads would be applied in this manner to side-facing seats to replicate loads likely to be imposed on the anchorages in a frontal crash. For rear-facing seats, testing in this manner ensures that the anchorages will be able to sustain loads from rear impacts.

The installation of LATCH in side- and rear-facing seats should be carefully considered, however. As far as we know, all child restraint manufacturers recommend against use of child restraints in side- or rear-facing seating positions.

Question 3.  Which certification options are available for voluntarily installed tether and/or child restraint anchorage systems for vehicles built before September 1, 2004?

Answer:  There are several options available to manufacturers of vehicles manufactured before September 1, 2004. These are outlined below. Manufacturers must select the option prior to, or at the time of, certification of the vehicle. (See answer to question 6 for further discussion.)

--As noted above, manufacturers are permitted to meet (a) either the tether anchorage strength requirements in the March 1999 final rule or alternative strength requirements that are based on Canadian requirements (S6.3); and (b) for lower anchorages, either the strength requirements in the March 1999 final rule or the strength requirements developed by the ISO working group (see introductory paragraph of S9).

--There is also an option available to manufacturers of passenger cars manufactured before September 1, 2004 relating to the strength of tether anchorages and how they are tested (a load of 5,300 N may be applied by way of a belt strap)(S6.3.2).

--Until September 1, 2004, manufacturers may meet alternative requirements as to the number of tether anchorages and child restraint anchorage systems they have to install in a vehicle, and where those systems must be located within a vehicle (S4.5).

There are some options concerning the location of the tether anchorage relative to the seating reference point of a designated seating position (S6.2).

Question 4.  Paragraph S6.3.3(b) states: A tether anchorage of a particular child restraint anchorage system will not be tested with the lower anchorages of that anchorage system if one or both of those lower anchorages have been previously tested under this standard. Paragraph S9.4.2(b) states: The lower anchorages of a particular child restraint anchorage system will not be tested if one or both of the anchorages have been previously tested under this standard. [Emphases added.]

Do these paragraphs mean that for a given designated seating position, a manufacturer certifies compliance with the tether anchorage requirements of FMVSS 225 in accordance with paragraph S6.3.4(a)(2), which specifies testing with SFAD-2 to apply the test loads to both the tether and lower anchorages, that he has satisfied all of the strength requirements for the child restraint anchorage systems at that designated seating position?

Answer:  No. The child restraint anchorage system must be capable of meeting both the requirements of S6.3.4 (strength of tether anchorage) and those of S9.4 (strength of lower anchorages alone). NHTSA has the option of choosing which test to conduct. Any tether anchorage could be tested, and must meet the requirements of S6.3.4 if and when the anchorage is tested. Any pair of lower bars of a child restraint anchorage system could be tested to the requirements of S9.4. Manufacturers must ensure that their anchorages comply with both requirements of the standard.

Question 5.  Does "this standard" as used in paragraph S6.3.3(b) and S9.4.2(b) refer to the entire standard or to the individual paragraphs S6 and S9 respectively?

Answer:  I believe our answer to question 4 responds to this question.

Question 6.  What interactions with NHTSA, if any, are required by a manufacturer to irrevocably select the various compliance options in FMVSS 225?

Answer:  Manufacturers must select an option prior to, or at the time of certification of the vehicle. Manufacturers are required to identify the option to which a particular vehicle has been certified. In practice, prior to conducting a compliance test on a vehicle, NHTSA will ask the manufacturer which option was selected for that vehicle and will test the vehicle in accordance with the manufacturers response.

I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Ms. Fujita at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:225
d.12/9/02





---

[1] NHTSA was petitioned to reconsider other aspects of the rule as well. We will be responding to those petitions in the near future.

ID: nht94-3.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 21, 1994

FROM: Ralph Harpster -- Laguna Mfg, Inc., Turlock, CA

TO: Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-15-94 from John Womack to Ralph Harpster (A42; STD. 208)

TEXT: I have been referred to your office for clarification of a program that utilizes the retro-fitting of seat belts in the rear of police vehicles.

Our company manufacturers a replacement rear seat used for the transport of prisoners in police cars. Police vehicles face special needs in the equipment they use and the methods they use to transport arrestees.

As you can well imagine, a great number of persons placed in the rear of a police car, under arrest, are not co-operative, nor do they particularly wish to go to jail, therefore, it is of significant importance that they be solidly restrained and unable to get loose in the rear of the vehicle, for obvious reasons.

Unfortunately the seat belt system used by the car manufacturer, while adequate to the task in a collision, will not restrain the prisoner under transport conditions due to the inertia reel retractor system. This allows the person belted in to exercise great range of motion and thus they can extricate themselves from the belt system. They can not only cause a great deal of damage to the vehicle, themselves and the police officer in an attempt to kick out the windows and escape, but can expose themselv es to a significant risk of injury should a collision occur while they are out of the belt.

In an effort to simplify the transport process, we furnish a molded seat that accomplishes several tasks. First, the seat will hold a prisoner upright and in place due to its molded configuration. Secondly, the seat eliminates the ability of the prison er to hide contraband, i.e. drugs, weapons etc. Thirdly the molded seat can be washed or disinfected thus helping a police dept. in its policy to overcome the problems associated with blood borne pathogens. Our query lies in the first task enumerated a bove. We retrofit the car with a seat belt system that overcomes the problem associated with the inertia reel retractor system. In our system we utilize a belt that pulls snugly, in a positive restraint mode and does not use a retractor. When the offi cer places the prisoner in the seat, the belt system is latched in place just as any seat belt would be, then the belt is manually pulled tight and remains in that position until manually released. We use a shoulder lap combination belt for meeting the 3 point fastening criteria, and we use only belts certified to meet M.V.S.S. 209-302. Additionally we use factory seat belt mounting locations. We desire that you review our stated use and render an opinion regarding the use of this system and, if in y our opinion, it fits the criteria established for retrofitting.

I would also, separately, like an opinion if a single shoulder belt could possibly meet any of the requirements. I realize that, like many agencies today, you have to deal with an increasingly heavy workload, but I would be extremely grateful if your of fices could give this the earliest possible consideration as we are trying very hard to do things in the most straight forward and compliant manner that we can.

I will take the liberty of thanking you in advance for any courtesy and consideration you can tender us.

ID: nht90-4.98

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 26, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Arthur H. Bryant, Esq. -- Executive Director, Trial Lawyers for Public Justice

TITLE: Neilson v. Porsche, et al., D. Idaho, Civ. No. 87-1121

TEXT:

This is in response to your letter to Kenneth Weinstein, the Assistant Chief Counsel for Litigation of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA"), regarding the above-referenced case, in which the District Court ruled that the plaintiff 's claims are preempted by Federal law. You have requested that the United States file an amicus curiae brief with the Ninth Circuit in support of the plaintiff.

Although this agency strongly disagrees with both the result and the rationale adopted by the District Court, we have decided not to request the Department of Justice to file an amicus brief in this appeal. A discussion of our views on this legal issue and the basis for our decision not to participate is set forth below.

As you are aware, it is the position of the United States, as expressed in amicus briefs filed in Ritt v. General Motors, No. 88-1822 (7th Cir.), and Wood v. General Motors, No. 89-46 (U.S. S.Ct.), that under certain circumstances, claims seeking to hold a motor vehicle liable in tort for its failure to install airbags in a vehicle are preempted by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 ("Act"), 15 U.S.C. S 1381 et seq., and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard ("FMVSS") No. 208, 49 CFR S 571.208, issued at 49 Fed. Reg. 28962 (July 17, 1984). However, in both of those briefs, the United States emphasized that, as a general matter, the fact that a motor vehicle complies with applicable federal safety standards neither preempts state law tort actions nor provides a complete defense to such claims.

Those briefs noted that NHTSA had, for many years, interpreted the Act to allow such claims to proceed, and referred to a January 5, 1981 letter from Frank Berndt, NHTSA's Chief Counsel, to Daniel L. Thistle. As that letter noted:

Section 108(c) (15 U.S.C. 1397(c)) of the Act provides that compliance with a motor vehicle safety standard "does not exempt any person from liability under common law." The House Report (H.R. Rep. No. 1776, 89th Cong., 2d Sess (1966)) on se ction 108(c) states that, "It is intended, and this subsection specifically establishes, that compliance with safety standards is not to be a defense or otherwise to affect the rights of parties under common law, particularly those relating to warranty, contract, and tort liability."

This principle has been upheld consistently by the courts, as reflected in the cases cited in the plaintiff's brief in opposition to Porsche's motion for summary judgment in this case. (Of course, NHTSA takes no position on the merits of this case; i.e. , whether Porsche should be held liable for not making the seat backs in the vehicle in question stronger.)

Thus, as noted above, in our view the District Court's opinion misstates the law on this issue. In relying upon cases in which courts have found claims involving airbags to be preempted, the court ignored the vital distiction between claims challenging a manufacturer's failure to install airbags rather than other forms of occupant protection that were specifically authorized by FMVSS No. 208, and claims such as the one at issue here, in which it is alleged that the manufacturer should have provided a h igher level of protection than that required under a NHTSA safety standard. However, to our knowledge, this is the first case in which a court has misapplied the airbag precedents to reverse a consistent body of law that permits claims such as this to p roceed. In keeping with NHTSA's long-standing policy of minimizing its involvement in private tort litigation, we believe that it would not be appropriate to participate formally in this case, particularly since the plaintiff will be able to provide the Ninth Circuit with our views on the issue. In the unlikely event that this erroneous view of the extent of Federal preemption proliferates in the future, the agency may decide to participate in a subsequent case.

ID: 10710

Mr. Paul D. Kelly
Albertson, Ward & McCaffrey
36 Euclid Street
Woodbury, NJ 08096

Dear Mr. Kelly:

This responds to your letter of February 2, 1995, requesting permission or a waiver from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to allow one of your clients, a "corporation specializing in modification of vehicles for handicapped and disabled citizens," to modify a vehicle for one of its customers. You explained that the customer "suffers from a neuromuscular disorder which renders her partially paralyzed." You further explained that "(s)he cannot turn the factory steering wheel because it is too thick for her to hold and too wide for her to see the gauges." You described previous modifications done for this customer as follows:

the steering box on a stock vehicle (would be) removed and the steering mechanism would be adjusted at a machine shop to a low effort or zero effort steering gear. From this point after- market steering wheels and column adapter kits would be installed to accept this new steering wheel.

You explained that your client was concerned that they would no longer be permitted to make such modifications as removal of the original steering wheel also results in removal of the air bag. During an April 4, 1995 phone call with Mary Versailles of my staff you explained that the vehicle is also equipped with a wheelchair lift and that the floor of the vehicle has been lowered. As explained in this letter, replacement of the steering wheel is permitted provided that a lap/shoulder safety belt is installed at the driver's position.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (49 USC '30111). Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform

to all applicable safety standards before they can be offered for sale (49 USC '30112). If a certified vehicle is modified, other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components, prior to its first retail sale, the person making the modification is an alterer and is required to certify that, as altered the vehicle continues to conform to all applicable safety standards (49 CFR '567.7).

After the first retail sale, there is one limit on modifications made to vehicles. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard (49 USC '30122). In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition would require a business which modifies motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard.

NHTSA has exercised its authority to issue Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR '571.208). Standard No. 208 requires light trucks and vans manufactured on or after September 1, 1991 to be capable of providing occupant crash protection to front seat occupants when the vehicle is crash tested at 30 miles per hour (mph) into a concrete barrier. A vehicle that provides this crash protection will increase the safety of vehicle occupants. The air bag installed in the customer's vehicle is one means of complying with this requirement.

As a result of this new requirement, this agency received a number of phone calls and letters, from both van converters and individuals suggesting that the new light truck and van crash testing requirement will, in effect, prohibit van converters from modifying vehicles to accommodate the special needs of persons in wheelchairs. The agency also received a petition asking for an amendment to the light truck and van crash test requirement in Standard No. 208 to address this problem.

As a result on that petition, on March 2, 1993, this agency amended Standard No. 208 to allow manufacturers of light trucks and vans an alternative to complying with the existing requirement (58 FR 11975). Under the amendment, "vehicles manufactured for operation by persons with disabilities" are excluded from the light truck and van automatic crash protection requirement. Instead, these vehicles must be equipped with a Type 2 manual belt (integrated lap and shoulder belt) or Type 2A manual belt (non-integrated lap and shoulder belt) at the front outboard seating positions. A "vehicle manufactured for operation by persons with disabilities" is defined as

vehicles that incorporate a level change device (e.g., a wheelchair lift or a ramp) for onloading or offloading an occupant in a wheelchair, an interior element of design intended to provide the vertical clearance necessary to permit a person in a wheelchair to move between the lift or ramp and the driver's position or to occupy that position, and either an adaptive control or special driver seating accommodation to enable persons who have limited use of their arms or legs to operate a vehicle. For purposes of this definition, special driver seating accommodations include a driver's seat easily removable with means installed for that purpose or with simple tools, or a driver's seat with extended adjustment capability to allow a person to easily transfer from a wheelchair to the driver's seat.

Based on the information you provided, the customer's van would come within this definition. Therefore, if your client would be considered an alterer, it may certify that, with the air bag removed, the vehicle continues to conform to all applicable safety standards, provided that the safety belts are not removed. If the modification is done after the first retail sale, removal of the air bag would not violate the "make inoperative" prohibition, provided that the safety belts are not removed.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have other questions or need some additional information, please contact Mary Versailles at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:208#VSA d:5/1/95 The March 2 final rule was further amended on May 18, 1994 to allow the installation of Type 2A manual belts (59 FR 25826).

ID: nht95-2.63

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 1, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Paul D. Kelly -- Albertson, Ward & McCaffrey

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/2/95 LETTER FROM PAUL D. KELLY TO PHILIP RECHT (OCC 10710)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Kelly:

This responds to your letter of February 2, 1995, requesting permission or a waiver from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to allow one of your clients, a "corporation specializing in modification of vehicles for handicapped and disabled citizens," to modify a vehicle for one of its customers. You explained that the customer "suffers from a neuromuscular disorder which renders her partially paralyzed." You further explained that "(s)he cannot turn the factory steering wheel bec ause it is too thick for her to hold and too wide for her to see the gauges." You described previous modifications done for this customer as follows:

the steering box on a stock vehicle (would be) removed and the steering mechanism would be adjusted at a machine shop to a low effort or zero effort steering gear. From this point after-market steering wheels and column adapter kits would be installed t o accept this new steering wheel.

You explained that your client was concerned that they would no longer be permitted to make such modifications as removal of the original steering wheel also results in removal of the air bag. During an April 4, 1995 phone call with Mary Versailles of m y staff you explained that the vehicle is also equipped with a wheelchair lift and that the floor of the vehicle has been lowered. As explained in this letter, replacement of the steering wheel is permitted provided that a lap/shoulder safety belt is in stalled at the driver's position.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (49 USC @ 30111). Manufa cturers are required to certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards before they can be offered for sale (49 USC @ 30112). If a certified vehicle is modified, other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily atta chable components, prior to its first retail sale, the person making the modification is an alterer and is required to certify that, as altered the vehicle continues to conform to all applicable safety standards (49 CFR @ 567.7).

After the first retail sale, there is one limit on modifications made to vehicles. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard (49 USC @ 30122). In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition would require a business which modifies motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard.

NHTSA has exercised its authority to issue Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.208). Standard No. 208 requires light trucks and vans manufactured on or after September 1, 1991 to be capable of providing occupant crash protection to front seat occupants when the vehicle is crash tested at 30 miles per hour (mph) into a concrete barrier. A vehicle that provides this crash protection will increase the safety of vehicle occupants. The air bag installed in the customer's vehicle is o ne means of complying with this requirement.

As a result of this new requirement, this agency received a number of phone calls and letters, from both van converters and individuals suggesting that the new light truck and van crash testing requirement will, in effect, prohibit van converters from mo difying vehicles to accommodate the special needs of persons in wheelchairs. The agency also received a petition asking for an amendment to the light truck and van crash test requirement in Standard No. 208 to address this problem.

As a result on that petition, on March 2, 1993, this agency amended Standard No. 208 to allow manufacturers of light trucks and vans an alternative to complying with the existing requirement (58 FR 11975). Under the amendment, "vehicles manufactured for operation by persons with disabilities" are excluded from the light truck and van automatic crash protection requirement. Instead, these vehicles must be equipped with a Type 2 manual belt (integrated lap and shoulder belt) or Type 2A manual belt (non- integrated lap and shoulder belt) at the front outboard seating positions. n1 A "vehicle manufactured for operation by persons with disabilities" is defined as

vehicles that incorporate a level change device (e.g., a wheelchair lift or a ramp) for onloading or offloading an occupant in a wheelchair, an interior element of design intended to provide the vertical clearance necessary to permit a person in a wheelc hair to move between the lift or ramp and the driver's position or to occupy that position, and either an adaptive control or special driver seating accommodation to enable persons who have limited use of their arms or legs to operate a vehicle. For pur poses of this definition, special driver seating accommodations include a driver's seat easily removable with means installed for that purpose or with simple tools, or a driver's seat with extended adjustment capability to allow a person to easily transf er from a wheelchair to the driver's seat.

n1 The March 2 final rule was further amended on May 18, 1994 to allow the installation of Type 2A manual belts (59 FR 25826).

Based on the information you provided, the customer's van would come within this definition. Therefore, if your client would be considered an alterer, it may certify that, with the air bag removed, the vehicle continues to conform to all applicable safe ty standards, provided that the safety belts are not removed. If the modification is done after the first retail sale, removal of the air bag would not violate the "make inoperative" prohibition, provided that the safety belts are not removed.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have other questions or need some additional information, please contact Mary Versailles at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 19278.DRN

Richard Nelson, Director
Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services
Regulation and Licensure
P. O. Box 95007
Lincoln, NE 68509-5007

Dear Mr. Nelson:

This responds to a letter from your predecessor, Ms. Gina Dunning, regarding a "new regulation" that Ms. Dunning believed the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued which "prohibits the sale of commercial vans with a capacity of eleven or more to child care centers that transport children to or from school and school-related activities and Head Start programs." As the head of the Nebraska regulatory agency for child care programs, Ms. Dunning expressed concern about its effect on transportation for children in your state.

Let me begin by explaining that NHTSA's school bus regulations have not changed. We have, however, clarified our interpretation of the regulations. Our statute, at 49 U.S.C. 30112, requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle, including a new school bus, to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable safety standards. Our statute defines a "schoolbus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying 11 or more persons and which is likely to be "used significantly" to transport preprimary, primary, and secondary students "to or from school or an event related to school" (emphasis added). 49 U.S.C. 30125. Any person selling a new "school bus" must sell a vehicle that meets our school bus safety standards, or risk civil penalties under Federal law.

In recent interpretation letters to NHTSA, the agency was asked to address situations where non-educational institutions are procuring buses to transport children to or from school. In answering these, we had to determine whether the bus was to be "used significantly" to transport the students to or from school. >If a new bus is sold for such purpose, the dealer selling such a vehicle for that purpose must sell a bus that has been certified as meeting our school bus safety standards. There are van-based vehicles, completed by school bus manufacturers, that are certified to those standards.

One of those letters involved a dealer selling a new 15-passenger van to a child care facility which planned to significantly use the van for school transportation. The letter is dated July 23,

1998, to Mr. Don Cote of Northside Ford in San Antonio, Texas (copy enclosed). In that letter, we explained that the large passenger van is a "school bus" under our regulations. Thus, when a dealer sells or leases a new van for such use, the dealer must sell or lease only buses that meet Federal motor vehicle safety standards for school buses, even when the purchaser is a child care facility.⁽¹⁾

The Cote letter discusses NHTSA's reexamination of two previous letters addressed to Ms. Vel McCaslin of Grace After School. In arriving at the conclusions set forth in the Cote letter, NHTSA decided that the letters to Ms. McCaslin did not focus on the fact that the buses were being used to transport school children "from school" as specified in 49 U.S.C. 30125. To the extent that the McCaslin letters are inconsistent with it, the Northside Ford letter superceded the letters to Ms. McCaslin.

This change in interpretation applies only to persons that sell new buses, not to school bus purchasers or users. NHTSA cannot require Nebraska's institutions, including schools or child care centers, to buy only school buses for use in transporting students. How children are to be transported to or from school is determined by Nebraska state law.

Ms. Dunning expressed concern whether "children are indeed safer being transported by school buses than commercial vans," and indicated that while that might have been true in 1974, her belief is that vans are safer today than they were in 1974. All motor vehicles, including passenger vans and other buses, must meet higher safety standards today than they did in 1974. Nevertheless, children are still much safer when transported by school bus, than by passenger van or passenger car. This point is illustrated in the enclosed NHTSA publication "School Bus Safety: Safe Passage for America's Children."

Page 12 of the publication shows how safety is enhanced for school buses, with a table summarizing the Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses. Passenger vans are not required to meet the described safety enhancements.

Ms. Dunning expressed concern about the fact that the large school buses are not required to provide seat belts. I am enclosing NHTSA's position on this issue, titled "Seatbelts on School Buses." This information is from NHTSA's web site at www.nhtsa.dot.gov. In brief, our position has been that school bus crash data show that Federal requirement for belts on school buses would provide little, if any, added protection in a crash.

Ms. Dunning also believed that child care centers that purchase school buses "will incur significantly higher vehicle costs and higher insurance, maintenance and fuel costs." We have examined the issues of costs and availability. Our inquiries to the vehicle manufacturers indicate that while school buses are somewhat more expensive than large vans, the difference is not so large that it would prevent child care centers from acquiring school buses. The cost range for 15-passenger school buses is approximately $30-32,000, compared to $25-28,000 for 15-passenger vans. The longer service life for school buses will offset a part of this difference.

Ms. Dunning's final point was that child care centers have expressed concern about the length of time it takes between ordering a school bus and its delivery. Ms. Dunning said that the delay hampers the child care centers' operations and "will seriously impact centers' ability to meet parent needs and remain in business." NHTSA has a very strong focus on child safety in transportation, and is doing its best to facilitate school bus purchases for child care centers that seek to purchase school buses for their school-aged children. The leadtime required for delivery of a school bus may be two or three months longer than for a large van, but this should not present a problem for organizations that follow a systematic plan for vehicle replacement. We are currently working with our partners in state and local communities, and in the school bus industry, to see what can be done to reduce the time between a school bus order and its delivery.

For your information, because of the increasing number of pre-school aged children being transported by school buses and the pupil transportation community's request for guidance on how to safely transport these children, NHTSA released a February1999 Guideline for Transporting Pre-school Aged Children in School Buses. A copy of this document is enclosed for your information.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures (4 items)
ref:VSA#Part 571.3

1. Please note that NHTSA has never stated that day care facilities that provide only custodial care are "schools." NHTSA's laws do not affect new bus sales to child care facilities that are not significantly involved in transporting school aged children "to or from" school. The Cote letter could affect the facility if it is involved in transporting children to or from school.

ID: aiam5058

"Dear Mr. Adams: This responds to your FAX of September 24, 1992 requesting a ruling regarding the legality of lap belts at the passenger seats on school buses. As explained below, Federal law has long required lap or lap/shoulder belts to be installed at every passenger seating position on small school buses. Federal law has also long permitted, but not required, lap or lap/shoulder belts to be installed at passenger seating positions on large school buses, provided that those belts do not adversely affect the large school bus's compliance with the applicable safety standards. This is still the agency's position. As you know, in 1977, NHTSA issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, which established minimum levels of crash protection that must be provided for occupants of all school buses. For large school buses (those with a gross vehicle weight rating GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds), the standard requires occupant protection through a concept called 'compartmentalization' -- strong, well-padded, well- anchored, high-backed, evenly spaced seats. Small school buses (those with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less) must provide 'compartmentalization' and be equipped with lap or lap/shoulder belts at all passenger seating positions. The agency believes that safety belts are necessary in addition to 'compartmentalization' in small school buses because of their smaller size and weight, which are closer to that of passenger cars and light trucks. Ever since 1977, NHTSA has indicated that Federal law permits lap or lap/shoulder belts to be installed at the passenger seating positions on large school buses as long as the vehicle would still comply with all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 222. NHTSA has no information to indicate that installation of seat belts at the passenger seating positions on a large school bus would affect the bus's compliance with any safety standard.The allegations in your FAX that using seat belts in large school buses will result in crash forces producing concentrated loading on the head, instead of being spread evenly over the upper torso as is the case without a seat belt, are nearly identical with the explanations included in a 1985 Transport Canada report on school bus safety. NHTSA carefully evaluated and considered the Canadian report and these explanations in connection with its rulemaking action considering whether to specify requirements for voluntarily installed seat belts on large school buses. 54 FR 11765, March 22, 1989. After fully considering the Canadian report, the agency stated at 54 FR 11770: NHTSA shares commenters' concerns about any implications that safety belts negatively affect the protection provided to passengers on large school buses. However, the agency is not aware of accident data showing an injury caused or made more serious by the presence of safety belts on a school bus. Furthermore, NHTSA cannot conclude from the Canadian report's findings that belts actually degrade the benefits of compartmentalization to the extent that the supplemental restraint system renders inoperative the safety of large school buses, but the possibility exists that the occupant kinematics shown in the Canadian tests could occur. The agency then identified some possible safety benefits that could result from seat belts in large school buses, benefits that were not considered in the Canadian tests. The agency concluded that, 'Although these benefits are not significant enough to justify a Federal requirement for the installation of safety belts on all large school buses, they are enough to provide a basis upon which the agency will decline to prohibit the installation of belts on large school buses.' 54 FR 11765, at 11770, March 22, 1989. I have enclosed a copy of this notice for your information. As you can see, NHTSA has carefully considered the subject raised in your FAX and reviewed all available information in this area. After that review, the agency concluded that there was no justification for changing its longstanding position that persons that wish to do so should be permitted to install seat belts at passenger seating positions in large school buses. Your letter did not provide any data that NHTSA had not already considered. Hence, there is no basis for the agency to change its longstanding position in this area. 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, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: aiam0606

Dear Mr. Parrott: This is in reply to your letter of February 8, 1972, requestin information pertaining to reclining type child seating systems. You describe these seats in your letter as those which allow the child to ride in a semi-recumbent posture by moving the seating surface forward while maintaining the upper back in a more or less fixed location. You state the hip of the child moves forward as a result, while the head remains in roughly the same place.; The questions you asked regarding this type of child seat are repeate below, followed by our responses.; >>>1. Is NHTSA now testing, or does it intend to test, reclining ca seats in both the upright and reclining configurations?; Paragraph S4.11.1(b) of Standard No. 213 requires that each chil seating system in which the attitude of the child is adjustable meet the performance requirements of the standard when placed in each designed adjustment position. Consequently, reclining child seats must meet these requirements in both reclining and upright positions.; 2. Is the allowed twelve-inch excursion to be measured from th reference point of the semi- recumbent dummy, or from the location of this point were the seat assumed to be upright?; The allowable forward movement of the dummy reference point is to b measured using the reference point of the semi-recumbent dummy, and the forward movement must not exceed 12 inches when measured from that point.; 3. Does the NHTSA intend to make a specific statement on th requirements of reclining car seats . . .?; We believe the language of paragraph S4.11.1 of the standard to b sufficiently explicit regarding this requirement.<<<; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: nht73-3.2

DATE: 12/03/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 24, 1973, concerning the conformity of an emergency feature of Mercedes-Benz's interlock system to S7.4.3 of Standard No. 208.

The feature you describe would permit the engine starting system to be operated without belt use for a period of 3 minutes after an activation knob inside the engine compartment is depressed. If the vehicle stalls, the driver would have to leave his seat, open the hood, depress the knob, close the hood, and return to his seat, at which point the interlock would be deactivated for the 3-minute period. This bypass feature would apparently supplement other convenience aspects provided pursuant to S7.4.3.

After review of the Mercedes system we have determined that it would not result in bypassing the interlock in situations where that would not be permissible under S7.4.3 or S7.4.4. We therefore conclude that it is an allowable system and that it may be installed.

Yours truly,

MERCEDES-BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.

September 24, 1973

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Dr. James B. Gregory, Administrator

Subject: Request for Interpretation of S7.4.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208

As previously reported to motor vehicle program engineers, Daimler-Benz AG., the parent company of Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., intends to install an engine-starting system operable without interference from the belt interlock system after the engine has stopped as provided in S7.4.3 of Standard 208. We are of the opinion that the by-pass device is in conformity with Standard 208, but we seek this interpretation of the referenced section for clarity. However, if the administration interprets S7.4.3 so as to not allow the below-described Mercedes by-pass system, then we request that this letter be considered as a petition for rulemaking to amend FMVSS 208 to allow incorporation of such a system in order to deal with the problem of a simultaneous engine stallout at a busy intersection and failure in the interlock system logic sequence. Obviously, such an occurrence could create a hazardous situation for the operator and occupants of a vehicle.

The Mercedes-Benz by-pass device will be tied in with the three minutes free starting period and would operate as follows:

In case of simultaneous engine stall and failure in the logic of the interlock system, the driver will have to open the front hood from inside the vehicle, leave the vehicle, and activate the system by depressing an activation knob located in the

2 engine compartment. The hood is then closed and the driver returns to his position within the vehicle at which point the interlock logic system becomes inoperative for a maximum of three minutes thus permitting repeated starting of the engine even though the driver and front seat passenger are not belted.

We feel this system addresses an important problem which can be encountered in normal driving especially in urban centers and would be in conformity with the present requirements of the standard. Needless to say, there is some urgency to this request for interpretation considering the rapidly approaching introduction date for 1974 model Mercedes equipped with the interlock belt system. Your favorable attention to this request would be most deeply appreciated.

Very truly yours,

H. W. Gerth Assistant Vice President