ID: nht74-4.40

DATE: 01/11/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Rex-Stroll-O-Chair Mfg. Co.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter dated November 29, 1973, requesting our comments on your enclosed second-draft customer notification letter, on your second-draft press release, and on your proposed dealer notification letter.

Thank you for your prompt response to our previous suggestions. Your present draft conforms to most of the requirements set forth in our Defect Notification regulation (49 CFR Part 577). However, several further changes appear necessary.

First, the second sentence of the fifth paragraph states incorrectly that failure may occur only in rear impact collisions causing loads in excess of eight or nine hundred pounds. Actually, failure is more likely to occur in frontal impacts than in side or rear impacts. Failure may occur whenever the load on the belts exceeds about eight hundred pounds. Such loading can result from impacts from any angle. Frontal impacts are more likely to produce such loads because the principal restraint provided by the belts is against the relative forward motion of the child which the vehicle deceleration of a frontal impact produces. In the case of a rear impact, belt loading results from "rebound." Consequently, belt loading at a given rear impact speed will be considerably lower. Side impacts, of course, produce both direct and indirect loading.

Second, paragraph two of your draft does not quite comply with 49 CFR sections 577.4(b), 577.5, and 577.6. The first sentence of your second paragraph must read: "The Rex-Stroll-O-Chair Mfg. Co. has determined that the car seat adapter portion of Stroll-O-Chair Model 71s manufactured before (date) does not comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 213." Because the wording of the statement is specified precisely, we must insist that it be followed as closely as the particular facts of each case allow.

The second sentence of the paragraph appears to follow section 577.4(b) (2). However, such a determination must have some basis other than your initial compliance testing, which we understand to be the only basis for your persent statement. In our view, a section 577.4(b)(2) statement would be appropriate only if you had a firm basis for believing that some adapters are materially different from others. Passing results from your own compliance testing are not enough. Otherwise every defect notification letter would contain a section 577.4(b)(2) statement except where the manufacturer violated section 108(a)(3) of the Motor Vehicle Act, prohibiting false or misleading certification. Such cases are rare indeed compared to routine compliance test failures such as yours.

Third, the second (last) sentence of paragraph six of your draft may be misleading. We suggest adding the phrase "manufactured after (date)" after "all model # 71 car seats" to make it apparent that everyone receiving a defect notification letter has the older rivet system.

Fourth, although the injuries which could occur in the event of adapter failure are many, and are readily apparent, section 577.4(d)(2) requires a general statement of the types of possible injury. One sentence which mentioned impact injuries from contact with the dashboard and other parts of the vehicle interior and which also noted the likelihood of ejection from the vehicle would suffice if placed at the end of paragraph five of your draft.

Fifth, you should probably include a reminder or suggestion that the customer have his small child use adult safety belts during the time he does not have the adapter. Even small children who should ride in approved car seats are better off belted than unbelted. Such a warning could be included in your final paragraph. We consider it a precautionary statement under section 577.4(c)(4).

Finally, section 577.4(e)(1) requires an estimate of the time reasonably necessary to perform the labor to correct each noncompliance. Because you propose to have each adapter sent to your factory, either directly or through a dealer, it might also be helpful to estimate the total length of time the customer is likely to be without the seat adapter.

We have but two minor suggestions for the press release. First, your initial sentence should specify that the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard is 213. Second, you should include the date on which you made your production method change. This is especially important because the designation "model # 71" encompasses both complying and noncomplying seats. Our consumer information staff is now drafting our own complementary press release. We will contact you about a joint issuance date.

We have no objection to your distributor notification letter.

ID: aiam4837

"Dear Mr. Jones: This responds to your letters of December 11, l990 and January 22, l99l, to Clive Van Orden of this agency, enclosing copies of your letters to Representative Blaz, dated July 6 and October 11, 1990, and to our Office of Enforcement dated July 5, l990. You have also enclosed a copy of a letter that Governor Guerrero of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) wrote on your behalf on October 11, l990, to Representative Blaz. Your letter to us of July 5, l990, expresses your understanding that the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) apply in the CNMI, and that you, as an importer, have imported only vehicles that are certified as conforming to the FMVSS, however, certain of your competitors have not. You asked 'Will I get compliance enforcement? Or should I join the competition and bring in the vehicles that do not comply?' To similar effect is your letter of the next day to Representative Blaz. Governor Guerrero's letter to Mr. Blaz expresses his opinion that the FMVSS do not apply in the CNMI. The Governor explains: By our Covenant with the United States, we were obliged to except NHTSA believes he means 'accept' federal laws that applied to Guam and the several states as of January 9, 1978. Federal enabling legislation behind the FMVSS has been on the books since l966. The legislation applied to Guam and the states on January 9, 1979 sic . It looks like we get the law. But that is not the end of the analysis. We would accept application of the FMVSS here only if such federal law did not deny us our guaranteed right of local self-government with respect to internal affairs. It is my view that automobile safety is an internal affair. It is the subject for self- government. The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards do not apply in the CNMI. These federal safety standards are imposed on the states by virtue of the Commerce clause of the Federal Constitution. The federal Commerce clause does not apply in the CNMI, it cannot carry the FMVSS into our islands. I t is our position that the FMVSS does sic apply here and will not be enforced by my Administration. We cannot agree with the Governor's conclusion. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of l966 (l5 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), does apply in the CNMI, as do all regulations such as the FMVSS that are issued under the authority of that law. The Governor believes that 'automobile safety is an internal affair'. For the most part we agree, but not with respect to the primacy of the FMVSS. We agree that vehicle registration, taxation, and use of the roads in the CNMI are matters properly under the jurisdiction of the CNMI. Further, the Act permits local jurisdictions to enact or continue in effect their own vehicle safety standards provided that they do not differ from the FMVSS (except as may apply to their own official vehicles). The FMVSS are manufacturing standards that apply when the vehicles are built, imported, and sold. We are sorry that your observance of the law may have put you at a competitive disadvantage. If you have specific information regarding possible violations of the importation provisions of the Act in the CNMI including the names and addresses of specific businesses or individuals, please communicate that information to Mr. Van Orden. Our sources of information are kept confidential. Although the FMVSS apply in the CNMI, it is obvious that enforcement of them by this agency is made more difficult by the absence of agency staff in the CNMI. If local government would 'move for immediate adoption of those standards ... by local law', then they may be enforced locally. I cannot think of a single one of the FMVSS that would not be of benefit. Although speeds may be low on the roads of the CNMI, many of the FMVSS are intended to provide crash protection at 30 m.p.h. Obviously, FMVSS that pertain to vehicle lighting, windshield wiping and washing, etc. provide protection at any speed. We appreciate your bringing this matter to our attention. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel cc: Thomas Rabago Highway Safety Coordinator";

ID: aiam0404

Dear Mr. Wuddel: This is in reply to your letter of July 7, 1971, to the Nationa Highway Safety Bureau (now the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) concerning the requirements for sealed beam headlamp units.; The answers to your specific questions are as follows: >>>1. Sealed beam units must meet the photometric specifications in SA J579 at the design voltage at or below the maximum amperes specified in SAE J573.; 2. Tolerances are as follows: *Electrical power* - the maximum electrical power is the product, i watts, of the design voltage multiplied by the maximum amperes at design volts. There is no specified minimum electrical power.; *Maximum amperes* - There is no tolerance. Maximum amperes is th maximum specified in SAE J573.; *Design watts* - There is no tolerance. There is, however, a toleranc on the actual watts or electrical power as described above.; 3. & 4. The filament types and positions are illustrative of curren practice only. Any type or position may be used to meet the specifications of J579 and J573.; 5. All glass sealed beam units are not mandatory. There are n restrictions in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 or the SAE Standards on the number of pieces or the materials which are used to complete the assembled sealed beam unit as long as the specifications, including those in SAE J571, are met. Caution should be used, however, to ensure that a good and durable seal is obtained between the metal back, if used, and the other parts to optimize the useful service life of the sealed beam unit.<<<; Sincerely, E. T. Driver, Director, Office of Operating Systems, Moto Vehicle Programs;

ID: nht74-1.2

DATE: 10/25/74

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

TO: Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

OCT 25 1974 N40-30 (ZTV)

Mr. K. Nakajima Director/General Manager Factory Representative Office Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A. Inc. 1099 Wall Street, West Lyndhurst, New Jersey 07071

Dear Mr. Nakajima:

This is in reply to your letter of October 18, 1974 to Dr. Gregory asking whether the start position may be designated as the check position required by paragraph S5.3.2 of Standard No. 105-75.

The answer is yes. Any position between "on" and "start", including "on" and "start" may be designated by the manufacturer as a check position.

Yours truly,

Richard B. Dyson Acting Chief Counsel

ID: nht79-3.8

DATE: 10/04/79

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY STEPHEN P. WOOD

TO: Clanahanm, Tanner, Downing and Knowlton

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of July 24 and your telephone conversation with Ms. Debra Weiner of my office in which you inquired about the Federal law applicable to the manufacture and use of auxiliary fuel tanks. You indicated that your client will be in the business of manufacturing auxiliary fuel tanks for use in passenger vehicles and on farm equipment. Most of the tanks will apparently be designed for mounting on the vehicles without connection to the vehicle fuel system, although some will be built with such connections.

Below is a discussion of questions numbered 1 and 6 in your letter, as well as a general discussion of the law applicable to the installation of both types of auxiliary tanks. Following is a brief discussion of the questions numbered 2-5 in your letter.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974, (the Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable either to entire motor vehicles or to equipment for installation in motor vehicles. Agricultural equipment is not encompassed by the term "motor vehicle" because Congress clearly did not intend that such equipment be within the coverage of the Act. Therefore, none of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards are applicable to farm equipment and the rest of this letter will be concerned only with passenger vehicles.

Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity, is a vehicle standard which applies to certain vehicles, including passenger cars, that use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F. The standard applies to completed vehicles rather than to fuel tanks or other fuel system components and thus is inapplicable to the manufacture of auxiliary fuel tanks.

Despite the inapplicability of Safety Standard No. 301-75 to their manufacture, auxiliary fuel tanks of either type you have mentioned must be designed and manufactured for safety. As a manufacturer of auxiliary fuel tanks, your client would be subject to the defects responsibility provisions of the Act (section 151 et seq). Upon discovery of a safety-related defect by the Secretary of Transportation, the NHTSA Administrator, or the manufacturer himself, your client, as a manufacturer, would be required to notify vehicle owners, purchasers, and dealers and remedy the defect.

A person who installs an auxiliary fuel tank in a new vehicle prior to its first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale would be a vehicle alterer under NHTSA regulations if that person modified the vehicle during the installation. As an alterer, your client would be required by 49 CFR 567.7 to affix an additional label to the vehicle stating that, as altered, the vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards -- including Safety Standard No. 301-75. Should a noncompliance or safety-related defect be discovered in such a vehicle, as a result of the modification, your client would be responsible for notifying vehicle owners and remedying the noncompliance or defect.

If your client connects auxiliary gasoline tanks to used passenger vehicles, he or she would not be required to attach an alterer's label. However, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act would apply. Section 108(a)(2)(A) provides in relevant part that:

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

Thus, if your client added an auxiliary tank of either type mentioned in your letter to a used passenger vehicle manufactured in accordance with Safety Standard No. 301-75 and other standards, and in the process knowingly rendered inoperative the compliance of the fuel system or other systems, he or she would have violated section 108(a)(2)(A).

For example, if your client mounted a tank on the exterior of a vehicle, without connection to the fuel system, and one of the mounting bolts caused the existing fuel system to leak in an amount in excess of that permitted by Safety Standard No. 301-75, he would be in violation of section 108(a)(2)(A). Depending upon the way in which he attached the tank to the vehicle or to its fuel system your client could also violate section 108(a)(2)(A) with respect to other safety standards including, but not limited to, the Bumper Standard (49 C.F.R. 581), and Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

Questions 2, 3, and 4.

According to the Federal Highway Administration which administers the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, they apply only to motor carriers and not to passenger vehicles that are not involved in interstate commerce. If you have further questions you might wish to contact the Federal Highway Administration directly.

Question 5. Do 49 C.F.R. 171 et seq. which regulate the transportation of certain hazardous materials apply to the private carrying of such materials on passenger vehicles or farm equipment?

These regulations are administered by the Research and Special Programs Administration, which informs me that the Federal regulations applying to hazardous materials concern the transportation of hazardous materials in commerce. Thus far, the regulations have not been applied to the private carrying of hazardous materials, such as gasoline, in a passenger vehicle or farm machine. If you have further questions you might wish to contact the Research and Special Programs Administration.

In conclusion, please note that, in general, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration discourages the use of auxiliary fuel tanks of any kind because of the grave dangers of fire and explosion posed by their improper manufacture or installation. In the near future this agency will be making a press release warning consumers of these hazards and discouraging them from using auxiliary fuel tanks.

I hope that you will find this response helpful and that you have not been inconvenienced by our delay in sending it to you.

SINCERELY,

CLANAHAN, TANNER, DOWNING AND KNOWLTON

July 24, 1979

Steven Wood, Esq. Office of Chief Counsel NHTSA

Re: Specifications for the Manufacture and Use of Auxiliary Fuel Tanks

Dear Mr. Wood:

This letter is an inquiry regarding the requirements and specifications of the Code of Federal Regulations for auxiliary fuel tanks. The fuel tanks with which we are concerned are those which could be mounted on passenger vehicles and farm equipment. Such vehicles would not be involved in interstate commerce.

I talked with Chuck Keiper in the Denver Office of the NHTSA and he recommended that I contact you concerning the following inquiries. Our questions concern both the applicability of the particular sections of the Code of Federal Regulations enumerated below and whether any other sections are applicable to the manufacture and use of the auxiliary fuel tanks described above. Would you please submit to us your opinions on the following:

1. Does the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #301 contained in 49 C.F.R. @571.301-75 apply to auxiliary fuel tanks not connected with the fuel system?

2. How do the regulations define "properly mounted fuel tank or tanks" as found in 49 C.F.R. @ 392.51?

3. What are the manufacturing specifications for such fuel tanks referred to in 49 C.F.R. @ 392.51?

4. Do 49 C.F.R. @ 393.65-.67, concerning the construction of liquid fuel tanks, apply to those auxiliary fuel tanks as specified above?

5. Do 49 C.F.R. @ 171 et seq. which regulate the transportation of certain hazardous materials apply to the private carrying of such materials on passenger vehicles or farm equipment?

6. Are there any other regulations of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration or Department of Transportation which would apply to the manufacture and use of such auxiliary fuel tanks?

Mr. Keiper indicated that the NHTSA was considering new regulations regarding auxiliary fuel tanks. Any information concerning such regulations also would be helpful.

Our client is concerned with complying with the regulations as they now exist. Your response to the above inquiries should assist in this regard and will be appreciated. If there is any other information which would be helpful, please contact me at your convenience.

Chuck Reeves Law Clerk

ID: nht87-3.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/25/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Wally Lang

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Wally Lang Langco, In 1340 Walden Drive Elgin, IL 60120

Dear Mr. Lang:

I am pleased to respond to your request for a written statement of the legal requirements that would apply to a new product you plan to introduce. In telephone conversations with Steve Kratzke, of my staff, you described a new product that you would like to introduce. This product, which would be sold only as an item of aftermarket equipment, is a child safety seat belt buckle shield. This "buckle shield" is designed to prevent children from inadvertently or intentionally opening the buckle on a child r estraint system. The buckle shield would consist of a plastic strip that would completely cover the buckle on the child restraint. It would be clipped onto the child restraint belt on one side, and attached to the side of the buckle on the other side, so as to completely cover the buckle. To open the buckle, a person would have to firmly grasp the strip and pull it away from the child restraint system. The end of the strip clipped to the belt would pull off of the belt, thereby allowing the person to re lease the buckle.

Although we understand your concern that young children not be able to easily unbuckle a child safety seat, we have significant reservations about your product. I hope the following discussion explains those reservations and the effect of our regulations on your product.

Our agency has the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR @571.213), which app lies to all new child restraint systems sold in this country. However, Standard No. 213 does not apply to aftermarket items for child restraint systems, such as your buckle shield. Hence, you are not required to certify that this product complies with th at Standard before selling the product.

Additionally, as Mr. Kratzke explained, you are not required to get "approval" from this agency before selling the buckle shield. NHTSA has no authority to "approve" motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. In stead the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seg.) establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. The agency periodically t ests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates other alleged safety-related defects.

Although we do not have any standards that directly apply to your product, we do have several statutory provisions that could affect it. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as your buckle shield are subject to the requirements in sections 151-1 59 of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. The agency does not determine the existence of safety defects except in the context of a defect proceeding, and thus is unable to say whether your product might or might not contain such a defect. However, the agency is concerned that people be able to easily and quickly operate a child safety seat buckle in an emergency. As the agency said two years ago on the re lated topic of the force level necessary to operate buckles in child restraints:

The agency's safety concerns over child restraint buckle force release and size stem from the need for convenient buckling and unbuckling of a child and, in emergencies, to quickly remove the child from the restraint. This latter situation can occur in i nstances of post-crash fires, immersions, etc. A restraint that is difficult to disengage, due to the need for excessive buckle pressure or difficulty in operating the release mechanism because of a very small release button, can unnecessarily endanger t he child in the restraint and the adult attempting to release the child. (50 PR 33722, August 21, 1985)

Your product could significantly increase the difficulty of using the buckle release and thus hinder a person attempting to release the belt in an emergency.

In addition, use of your product could be affected by section 108(a) (2) (A) of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a) (21 (A)). That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly tampering with devices or elements of design installed in an i tem of motor vehicle equipment, such as a child safety seat, in compliance with the federal motor vehicle safety standards. Standard No. 213 specifies the elements of design with which a child restraint system might not comply if your buckle shield Here installed. Section 55.4.3.5 of Standard No. 213 requires the pushbutton release for any buckle on a child restraint to have a minimum area for applying the release force. Since your device will completely cover the buckle when installed, the buckle shiel d would cause the child restraint to no longer comply with this requirement. Therefore, commercial establishments cannot legally install your device on customers' child safety seats. In addition, section @5.7 of Standard No. 213 requires that each materi al used in a child restraints system shall comply with the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CER 5571.302). If your buckle shield does not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 302, co mmercial establishments cannot legally install your device. The prohibition of section 108(a) (2(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who may install or remove any items on child restraint systems regardless of the effect on compliance with Standard No. 213. However, our policy is to encourage child res traint owners not to tamper with their child restraints. Installation of your product by any person would be inconsistent with that policy.

If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: 15302.jeg

William A. Leasure, Jr.
Executive Director
Truck Manufacturers Association
1225 New York Avenue, N.W.
Suite 300
Washington, DC 20005

Dear Mr. Leasure:

This responds to your letter regarding Standard No. 208's labeling and owner's manual requirements for air bag-equipped vehicles. You ask whether the requirements apply to medium and heavy trucks equipped with air bags, and suggest that we adopt an interpretation that the requirements do not apply to these vehicles. We do not interpret the standard as you suggest.

Standard No. 208's air bag labeling and owner's manual requirements are set forth in S4.5.1. While many of the standard's requirements, including those mandating air bags, are expressly limited to vehicles with specified gross vehicle weight ratings, S4.5.1 does not contain any such limitation.

You suggest that the air bag labeling and owner's manual requirements should, nonetheless, be interpreted as not applying to medium and heavy trucks equipped with air bags, because these vehicles are not required to have air bags. You note several facts in support of this argument:

The focus of NHTSA with regard to passive occupant protection has been, and continues to be, light passenger vehicles and not medium and heavy-duty trucks.

While Standard No. 208 applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses, the standard permits trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds the option of only having a Type 1 or Type 2 belt system. (Your letter indicates that all medium and heavy-duty truck manufacturers install Type 2 seat belts as standard equipment.)

In NHTSA's November 1996 final rule specifying installation of new, attention getting labels, it cited compliance dates only for passenger cars, light trucks and vans. Moreover, the focus of the agency in this rulemaking was the protection of children. Medium and heavy-duty trucks are utilized for commercial purposes and therefore often only have provisions for a driver's seat. In cases where there is a passenger seat, it is rarely occupied and even more rarely occupied by children. Currently, no medium or heavy-duty truck manufacturer offers a passenger-side air bag.

You also stated that TMA believes it would be more appropriate for the agency to allow the original warning label specified by Standard No. 208, rather than the new ones, to be used voluntarily in medium and heavy-duty trucks

While we do not disagree that our rulemakings regarding labeling and owner's manual requirements for vehicles equipped with air bags have focused on light vehicles, we nonetheless conclude that the requirements also apply to medium and heavy trucks equipped with air bags. There are several reasons for this conclusion.

First, the standard does not limit the applicability of these requirements to light vehicles or to vehicles required to have air bags. Second, the safety concerns addressed by these requirements apply to all vehicles equipped with air bags and not merely light vehicles. For example, the warning to sit as far back as possible from the air bag and to always use seat belts is relevant to heavy vehicles as well as light vehicles equipped with air bags. I note that manufacturers of vehicles without passenger-side air bags are permitted to omit language concerning the hazards to children from air bags. See Final rule, correcting amendment published in the Federal Register (61 FR 64297) on December 4, 1996. Finally, we believe that, to the extent it might be appropriate to specify different labeling or owner's manual requirements for medium or heavy vehicles than for light vehicles, the issues would most appropriately be addressed in rulemaking.

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:208

d.9/22/97

ID: nht68-3.18

DATE: 03/12/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph R. O'Gorman; NHTSA

TO: The Reuben H. Donnelley Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of February 27, 1968, to the Federal Righway Safety Bureau, in regard to obtaining information about Safety Standard No. 209, seat belt assemblies.

Regarding your question on seat belt usage as pertaining to a fire apparatus vehicle, seat belts are not required to be installed, however, if seat belts are installed on a truck by a manufacturer, the seat belt assemblies, as equipment, must meet the requirements of Standard 209, specifically, requirements of the Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards for seat belts for use in motor vehicles (15 CFR 9)(30 FR 8432).

Thank you again for your interest in the safety program.

ID: aiam1877

Dear Mr Myers: This is in response to your submission of March 25, 1975, whic consisted of a request to reconsider the decision on your petition of February 6, 1975, along with several interpretive questions concerning the NHTSA's position on what courses of action small intermediate and final-stage manufacturers might take to certify vehicles they modify to Standard 121.; I. The main reason advanced for the request to reconsider the decisio was that the concept of due care on the part of these modifiers is 'subjective and esoteric,' and does not constitute an objective criterion. The due care requirements for these modifiers were discussed extensively in a meeting between you and your clients and DOT representatives on March 18. We do not agree that the NHTSA requirements are not objective. The requirements of the standards are phrased in precise, quantitative terms, as far as possible. In contrast, the steps that private party must take to conform to the requirements are left to him, as is the case with most of our nation's laws. The fact that we have taken the time to discuss with you the steps that an individual company might take in obeying the law, and that these steps might vary depending on the situation and the resources of that company, do not alter in any way the objectivity of the requirements of the standard.; It is the standard that is required to be phrased in objective terms not the public's response to it.; The other arguments raised in your submission are either repetitive o those raised in the previous petition, or arguments against the standard itself that have been considered in the course of the rulemaking. Your request for reconsideration of the petition is therefore denied.; II. Our answers to the questions you have raised are as follows: 1., 2., and 3. If testing facilities are not available to a intermediate or final-stage manufacturer, or the cost of his testing a vehicle directly to the requirements of Standard 121 is prohibitive, such a company should develop an alternative method of determining that his alterations do not take a vehicle out of compliance with the standard. These methods could include testing of typical installations by independent contractors working with associations of companies such as TEBDA, testing of typical installations by suppliers of the axles or other components sought to be installed, engineering calculations by the alterer, the alterer's supplier, or by independent contractors, or copying of installations that have been approved by chassis manufacturers. Component (e.g., axle) suppliers would appear to be a prime source of the type of assistance needed by intermediate and final-stage manufacturers, since they are most familiar with the main components of the installation and have the greatest economic interest in seeing this segment of the industry maintained.; 4. The above answer applies to the requirements for brake actuation an release times just as to other requirements of the standards. If a company wishes to perform completion work outside the limits of the chassis manufacturer's specifications, it should take the steps reasonably available to it to ascertain that the vehicle will remain in conformity. In the example given, the axle suspension supplier would be the logical best source of conformity information.; 5. and 6. The NHTSA does not consider it necessary or appropriate t develop alternative 'objective procedures' for testing to the requirements of its standards. The objective requirements are set forth in the standard. The agency continues as it has in the past to consider the development of actual test protocols, to determine that products conform to those requirements, as the responsibility of the regulated industries and the associated industries that service them. We have found no reason to believe that there is a lack of available engineering expertise, or of sources of supply of suitable test equipment, to perform this function in and for the private sector.; 7. The NHTSA does not at this time have facilities 'of its own' to tes to Standard 121. It uses contractors to perform this function.; You should note that our discussion of due care does not deal with th question of what action must be taken by a manufacturer by way of remedy, if a nonconformity is discovered in his vehicles that is not 'inconsequential' within the meaning of section 157 of the Act (1974 Amendments). Except for the case of an inconsequentiality finding, the duty to remedy a nonconformity exists regardless of prior testing or any other measures taken by the manufacturer.; Sincerely, James B. Gregory, Administrator

ID: aiam5161

"Dear Mr. Bluthardt: This responds to your letter of March 19, 1993 concerning the use of built-up foot operated throttle controls. Your questions and the answers to each follows. 1. Is there a violation of the FMCSR's in conjunction with the FMVSS concerning the modification of a school bus foot operated throttle control or other equipment modifications that may relate to the physical accommodation of a commercially licensed driver to perform his or her duties behind the wheel? My answer is limited to a discussion of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS's), since NHTSA issued these under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., Safety Act). The Federal motor carrier safety regulations (FMCSR's) are issued by the Federal Highway Administration. For information on the FMCSR's you should contact: Office of Motor Carrier Standards Room 3404 Federal Highway Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 (202) 366-1790 The Safety Act authorizes NHTSA to issue FMVSS's that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish Standard No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems (49 CFR 571.124). Standard No. 124 'establishes requirements for the return of a vehicle's throttle to the idle position when the driver removes the actuating force from the accelerator control.' The Safety Act requires each vehicle manufacturer to certify that its vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 124. This certification process requires each manufacturer to determine in the exercise of due care that its products meet all applicable requirements. If the throttle control or other equipment on the new school bus were modified by the bus manufacturer, the bus manufacturer must ensure that the vehicle meets all applicable FMVSS's, including Standard No. 124. If the throttle control or other equipment were modified on a new, previously-certified vehicle (e.g., a new, completed school bus) prior to the new vehicle's first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the modification. (See 49 CFR 567.7.) If the modification is made after the vehicle's first sale, the only NHTSA requirement that would affect the modification is the 'render inoperative' prohibition in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). 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. The 'render inoperative' provision would prohibit a commercial business listed in 108(a)(2)(A) from modifying the foot operated throttle in a manner that would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 124. If the foot operated throttle control was built up in a way that prevented the throttle from returning to idle when the driver removed his or her foot, it would violate the render inoperative prohibition. Please note that the render inoperative prohibition only applies to the named commercial entities. Owners may modify their vehicles without violating any laws or regulations administered by this agency. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to tamper with vehicle safety equipment if the modification would degrade the safety of the vehicle. 2. If we can modify the foot operated throttle control to the vehicle (school bus), does the modification require specific registration, certification, or inspection prior to the installation? FOR EXAMPLE: Can the modification be made and installed locally, or should the modification be purchased and installed by a certified commercial vendor ie., manufacturer. NHTSA does not limit who may modify vehicles, and does not approve modifications or motor vehicle designs. Thus, the person making the modification does not receive any NHTSA approval prior to making the modification. If the modification is made by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, 108(a)(2)(A) would be a factor in how the modification may be performed. As explained above, those persons must not render inoperative any device or design installed pursuant to an FMVSS. State law might affect how a throttle control can be modified on a vehicle. We suggest you consult with your State as to whether its law might affect the registration or inspection of the modified vehicle. 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 cc: Office of Motor Carrier Standards";