ID: 7145

Mr. Tm Kozy
Marketing Director
InfiniMed
2105 S. Hardy Dr., Ste. 5
Tempe, AZ 85282-1990

Dear Mr. Kozy:

This responds to your March 24, 1992 letter concerning "adaptive aids (hand controls) in cars equipped with air bags." I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Your two questions and the response to each follows.

1. Is it illegal to install a hand control unit that is drilled into the steering column that, according to the bulletin issued by Chrysler Corporation referring to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208, voids the warranty on the air bag as it may render the system inoperative.

To the extent you are seeking information about warranty claims, NHTSA has no authority to regulate those issues. Therefore, I cannot comment on the effect installation of hand controls might have on a warranty. The only Federal agency that has authority to regulate questions relating to warranties in general is the Federal Trade Commission. If you wish to contact that agency for further information regarding warranty questions, you may write to: Mr. Barry J. Cutler, Director, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, Pennsylvania Avenue at Sixth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580.

I will, however, discuss the implications of the laws and regulations administered by this agency on the installation of hand controls in motor vehicles. Section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes NHTSA to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products meet all applicable safety standards. NHTSA periodically tests certified products to ensure that they do, in fact, comply with applicable standards, and investigates allegations that products contain defects related to motor vehicle safety.

If a new vehicle were altered by installation of adaptive controls prior to the vehicle's first sale to a consumer, the person making the installation would be considered an "alterer" and would be required by 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, to certify that the vehicle continues to comply with all applicable safety standards affected by the alteration. With respect to the installation of adaptive controls at a driver's position equipped with an air bag, the party making such an installation would be obliged to certify that the air bag is capable of functioning at least as well with the adaptive control installed as it functioned before the installation.

After the first sale to a consumer, a vehicle is no longer required by Federal law to conform to all safety standards, and persons modifying the vehicle are no longer required to attach certification labels. However, 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act provides as follows:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly 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...

This provision obliges any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business that installs adaptive controls in vehicles equipped with air bags at the driver's position to ensure that such installation does not "render inoperative," or interfere with, the protection afforded the driver by the air bag. Violations of this "render inoperative" prohibition in the Safety Act are punishable by civil fines of up to $1,000 per violation. I note that 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect modifications made by vehicle owners to their own vehicles.

Finally, under the Safety Act, adaptive controls would be considered items of motor vehicle equipment. There are currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to adaptive controls as a separate item of motor vehicle equipment. However, although no safety standards apply directly to adaptive controls as a separate item of motor vehicle equipment, manufacturers of adaptive controls are subject to the requirements in 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety defects. In the event that NHTSA or a manufacturer determines that a manufacturer's product contains a safety- related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

2. I need to know if such a unit were installed on an air bag equipped vehicle, and that same vehicle is resold in, say a year or two, is the seller required by law to notify the next buyer that the warranty on the air bag system has been voided, even though the controls may now have been removed.

At the outset, I must again note that this agency has no authority over warranty issues or alleged unfair trade practices. Any such questions should be addressed to the Federal Trade Commission at the address given above. My answer is limited to obligations imposed by the Safety Act and the standards and regulations issued by this agency pursuant to that Act.

The "render inoperative" provision of the Safety Act does not impose an affirmative duty on dealers to replace equipment that was previously removed by someone else, or to repair equipment that was damaged in a crash. Thus, the "render inoperative" provision does not require a dealer to replace an air bag that does not function because of something that happened before the dealer took possession of the vehicle, including the installation of hand controls. Moreover, nothing in the Safety Act imposes a duty on dealers of used vehicles to disclose information to purchasers. Notwithstanding the absence of any such requirements in the Safety Act, a dealer may be required by State law to repair or replace the air bag in these circumstances. For further information on the provisions in various State laws, you may contact: the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22203.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions or need some additional information in this area, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#208 d:5/5/92

ID: nht92-7.17

DATE: May 5, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Tm Kozy -- Marketing Director, Infini Med

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/24/92 from Tm Kozy to Office of the Chief Council, NHTSA (OCC 7145)

TEXT:

This responds to your March 24, 1992 letter concerning "adaptive aids (hand controls) in cars equipped with air bags." I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Your two questions and the response to each follows.

1. Is it illegal to install a hand control unit that is drilled into the steering column that, according to the bulletin issued by Chrysler Corporation referring to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208, voids the warranty on the air bag as it may render the system inoperative.

To the extent you are seeking information about warranty claims, NHTSA has no authority to regulate those issues. Therefore, I cannot comment on the effect installation of hand controls might have on a warranty. The only Federal agency that has authority to regulate questions relating to warranties in general is the Federal Trade Commission. If you wish to contact that agency for further information regarding warranty questions, you may write to: Mr. Barry J. Cutler, Director, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, Pennsylvania Avenue at Sixth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580.

I will, however, discuss the implications of the laws and regulations administered by this agency on the installation of hand controls in motor vehicles. Section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes NHTSA to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items, of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products meet all applicable safety standards. NHTSA periodically tests certified products to ensure that they do, in fact, comply with applicable standards, and investigates allegations that products contain defects related to motor vehicle safety.

If a new vehicle were altered by installation of adaptive controls prior to the vehicle's first sale to a consumer, the person making the installation would be considered an "alterer" and would be required by 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, to certify that the vehicle continues to comply with all applicable safety standards affected by the alteration. With respect to the installation of adaptive controls at a driver's position equipped with an air bag, the party making such an installation would be obliged to certify that the air bag is capable of functioning at least as well with the adaptive control installed as it functioned before the installation.

After the first sale to a consumer a vehicle is no longer required by Federal law to conform to all safety standards, and persons modifying the vehicle are no longer required to attach certification labels. However, S108 (a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act provides as follows:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly 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...

This provision obliges any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business that installs adaptive controls in vehicles equipped with air bags at the driver's position to ensure that such installation does not "render inoperative," or interfere with, the protection afforded the driver by the air bag. Violations of this "render inoperative" prohibition in the Safety Act are punishable by civil fines of up to $1,000 per violation. I note that S108 (a)(2)(A) does not affect modifications made by vehicle owners to their own vehicles.

Finally, under the Safety Act, adaptive controls would be considered items of motor vehicle equipment. There are currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to adaptive controls as a separate item of motor vehicle equipment. However, although no safety standards apply directly to adaptive controls as a separate item of motor vehicle equipment, manufacturers of adaptive controls are subject to the requirements in SS151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety defects. In the event that NHTSA or a manufacturer determines that a manufacturer's product contains a safety related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

2. I need to know if such a unit were installed on an air bag equipped vehicle, and that same vehicle is resold in, say a year or two, is the seller required by law to notify the next buyer that the warranty on the air bag system has been voided, even though the controls may now have been removed.

At the outset, I must again note that this agency has no authority over warranty issues or alleged unfair trade practices. Any such questions should be addressed to the Federal Trade Commission at the address given above. My answer is limited to obligations imposed by the Safety Act and the standards and regulations issued by this agency pursuant to that Act.

The "render inoperative" provision of the Safety Act does not impose an affirmative duty on dealers to replace equipment that was previously removed by someone else, or to repair equipment that was damaged in a crash. Thus, the "render inoperative" provision does not require a dealer to replace an air bag that does not function because of something that happened before the dealer took possession of the vehicle, including the installation of hand controls. Moreover, nothing in the Safety Act imposes a duty on dealers of used vehicles to disclose information to purchasers. Notwithstanding the absence of any such requirements in the Safety Act, a dealer may be required by State law to repair or replace the air bag in these circumstances. For further information on the provisions in various State laws, you may contact: the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22203.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions or need some additional information in this area, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 1984-1.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/07/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Manning; Fulton; and Skinner -- John B. McMillan

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 5/18/77 letter from Frank Berndt to Video Research Corp.

TEXT: Mr. John B. McMillan Manning, Fulton, and Skinner Raleigh, North Carolina

This is in response to your March 5, 1984 letter regarding the extent to which an automotive remote starting device which one of your clients wishes to market is compatible with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 114, Theft Protection. This device would permit a vehicle to be started from a remote location using a signal transmitter, provided the vehicle's gear shift is in the park position, the emergency brake is set, the hood is closed, and all the vehicle doors are closed. Further, should any of these failsafe systems became deactivated (e.g., gear shift lever moved out of the park position), the engine would automatically shut off.

FMVSS 114 reguires that passenger cars as well as trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less must have a key locking system that, when the key is removed, will prevent normal activation of the vehicle's engine and either steering or forward self-mobility. We presume that the steering/transmission lock feature is unaffected by your client's device. Therefore, the question presented by your client's system is whether that device, which permits activation of the engine when the ignition key is removed, permits "normal activation" of the vehicle.

In a previous agency interpretation (copy enclosed), the agency described certain characteristics of a remote starting system similar to your client's which we concluded were outside the concept of "normal activation." These characteristics are automatic deactivation of the remotely started engine when a vehicle door is opened, maintenance of the steering column or gear shift locking feature until the ignition key is inserted in the vehicle, and automatic deactivation of the remotely started engine after 15 minutes (unless the key is inserted in the ignition).

Your client's device apparently has some of these same characteristics as this previously considered device, as well as other automatic engine deactivation features which are comparable in nature. Therefore, we conclude your client's device does not conflict with the requirements of FMVSS 114, since it does not permit normal activation of the engine without the ignition key.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt

Enclosure - See 5/18/77 Letter from Frank Berndt to Video Research Corp.

March 5 1984

Re: Hawban, Inc. - G-11934

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This letter will confirm my telephone conversation with Roger Fairchild regarding a patented device which my client Hawban, Inc. is attempting to market with major automobile manufacturers. A description of this product is attached for your review. In one of our meetings, John Mapleback of Ford suggested that we contact your office to review the concept with you. Specifically, before going any further, we wanted to be sure that your office would agree that this system is compatible with the existing standards of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and particularly Standard No. 114.

My client's device provides for the remote starting of an automobile and the signaling back as to whether the starting has been accomplished. There are significant safety features built into the device so, for example, the device will not operate unless the gear shift is in the park position, the emergency brake is set, the hood is closed and the doors are all closed. In the event any of these circuits are broken, as for example the hood is open, the engine will cut off. We do not feel that the device conflicts with Standard No. 114 because the use of it would not be "normal activation" of the vehicle. The device is not intended as a substitute for a key because the automobile could not be operated without a key. If the car door were to be opened the engine would shut off. If the gear shift were taken out of the park position, the engine would shut off. In fact, because it would encourage the owner to leave the vehicle in the "park" position and with the emergency brake engaged, we hope you will agree that it is a positive device.

We would appreciate your looking into this matter and confirming our interpretation of the relationship between this device and your standards.

Very truly yours,

MANNING, FULTON & SKINNER

John B. McMillan

JBM/gbj Enclosure omitted.

ID: nht92-3.21

DATE: 10/09/92

FROM: ROBERT R. MCAUSLAND, P.E.

TO: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-16-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO ROBERT R. MCAUSLAND (STD. 213)

TEXT: Paul Jasinski of your Enforcement Division suggested I write you for an interpretation of Federal Vehicle Safety Standard 213. I am a consulting engineer engaged in the design of a rear facing infant seat for use in automobiles and aircraft.

My question refers to section S5.2.4 which has to do with protrusions. With reference to the attached sketch it may be seen that the frame of my seat is made from 1/4 inch thick polyethylene sheet. All the edges of the frame are rounded to a radius of 1/8 of an inch, the maximum possible on a 1/4 inch thick sheet. The corners, looking flatwise at the sheet, are 3.0 inch radius.

Does my design comply with S5.2.4? Do you consider the edges of my frame as protrusions? Since side loading is not specified in S7 could I conclude that there is no way that the child's head or torso could contact the sides of the frame?

(DRAWING OMITTED)

ID: nht89-2.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/11/89

FROM: BUTLER DERRICK -- CONGRESS

TO: STEVE WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 07/31/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO BUTLER DERRICK -- CONGRESS; REDBOOK A31; STANDARD 208 TEXT OF THE RULING BY THE ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT UPHOLDING THE STATE'S LAW REQUIRING SEAT BELT USE BY DRIVERS AND FRONT SEA T PASSENGERS IN AUTOMOBILES; DATE 10/01/86

TEXT: I am writing to inquire about a matter which was brought to my attention by a constituent from South Carolina.

The constituent states that the Supreme Court has found laws requiring the wearing of helmets by motorcyclists to be unconstitutional. He does not understand why laws requiring people to wear seat belts in cars would not also be unconstitutional.

The constituent poses an interesting question, and I respectfully request that you look into this matter, particularly as it relates to existing federal and state precendents, and furnish me with a reply that I might share with him.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. I look forward to hearing from you.

With kind regards, I am

Respectfully

ID: nht76-2.45

DATE: 03/17/76

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

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

COPYEE: HERLIHY; ARMSTRONG; HITCHCOCK

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to several questions raised by Blue Bird Body Company concerning the applicability of school bus safety standards to certain bus types under the newly-issued redefinition of school bus (40 FR 60033, December 31, 1975). The new definition (effective October 27, 1976) reads:

"School bus" means a bus that is sold, or introduced in interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, but does not include a bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation.

In your February 24, 1976, letter you ask whether buses utilized to transport athletic teams and school bands to and from athletic events quality as school buses under the definition that becomes effective October 27, 1976, and, if so, whether they must therefore comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

From your description of the use of an "activity bus" to transport students to and from athletic events related to the students' school, it would be included as a school bus under the new definition if it were sold for this use. It appears clear that the manufacturer and dealer in these cases would both be aware that the purchasing school intended to use the bus to transport students to events related to their school, such as athletic events involving school teams. In close cases, the knowledge of parties to the sales transaction would be determinative of whether the bus was "sold . . . for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events . . . ." Any bus determined to be a school bus under the new definition would be required to meet all applicable standards in effect on the date of its manufacture.

Your December 16, 1975, letter asks whether transit buses that are based on a basic school bus design must meet the requirements of Standard No. 217, Emergency Exits, that apply to buses other than school buses. Since receipt of your letter, the redefinition of school bus has been issued and Standard No. 217 has been amended by the addition of requirements for school buses. In answer to your question, only a bus that is sold for purposes that include carrying students to and from school qualifies as a school bus. A bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation would be required to meet the requirements of Standard 217 for buses other than school buses.

Your separate question regarding the configuration of emergency exits has been answered in an earlier interpretation of the provision you question. A copy of that interpretation is enclosed.

Your March 4, 1976, letter asked whether the new definition of school bus includes buses that are sold for transportation of college-age students. You argued that an intent to include buses other than those for the transportation of preprimary-, primary-, and secondary-school students would go beyond the statutory definition added to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act by the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974 (15 U.S.C. @ 1391(14)), and apply the standards to a broader variety of vehicles than those for which they were developed. The NHTSA finds this argument to have merit. It therefore withdraws its discussion of the breadth of the regulatory definition of school bus that appeared in the December 31, 1975, preamble. The agency will not consider buses sold for the transportation of college-age students to be school buses.

You also asked if any motor vehicle safety standard requires that school buses be painted yellow. No motor vehicle safety standard requires yellow paint. At this time however, standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, requires installation of warning lights, and this would entail the use of yellow paint by the operator under Pupil Transportation Standard No. 17.

In an area unrelated to school bus definition, you asked in a February 20, 1976, letter whether the description of vehicle roof appearing in S5.2(b) of Standard No. 220, School Bus Rollover Protection, applies to determination of roof size under both S5.2(a) and S5.2(b). The description is intended to apply to roof measurement under both S5.2(a) and S5.2(b).

YOURS TRULY,

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

February 24, 1976

Mr. Richard Dyson Assistant Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

SUBJECT: DOCKET NO. 75-24; NOTICE 02, REDEFINITION OF "SCHOOL BUS"

We frequently have orders for "activity buses" which are owned by schools for such trips as may be taken by the school band, football or other athletic teams. These buses often have recliner or headrest seats and more than average leg room to make the students comfortable for longer trips. Equipment such as warning lamps would probably never be used on this type bus since it usually departs from the local school or other designated sites and doesn't pick up and discharge students like a daily school bus. Schools also like to paint these buses with their own colors rather than NSBC.

Will it be legal for Blue Bird to fulfill market demand for buses as described above or must this type bus be NSBC in color, have school bus warning lamps, FMVSS 222 seats and barriers? Who is responsible for saying if this bus is a "school bus" or not?

Thanks for your help in this matter.

W. G. Milby Staff Engineer

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY March 4, 1976

Mr. Richard Dyson Assistant Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

SUBJECT: DOCKET 75-24, NOTICE 2, REDEFINITION OF "SCHOOL BUS"

Additional questions regarding this subject have arisen since my letter of February 24, 1976 to you on the same subject. Therefore, please consider this letter to be an addendum to my letter of February 24, 1976.

We are assuming that buses owned and operated by parochial schools for the use of transporting students to or from school are "school buses" as well as buses owned and operated by public schools. Is this assumption correct? We understand that if these buses are "school buses" then they must meet all standards which apply to school buses. However, we are not sure if it must be painted NSBC yellow as described by Pupil Transportation Standard #17.

Specifically, if a customer such as a private school orders a bus and states on the purchase order that it will be used as a school bus, may we paint it a color other than NSBC yellow?

Public Law 93-492 defines a "school bus" as " . . . . a passenger motor vehicle which is designed to carry more than ten passengers in addition to the driver, and which the secretary determines is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, pre-primary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools;".

Based on this definition, we are assuming there is no intent for college buses to be defined as "school buses". This conclusion seems to be further substantiated by the fact that college buses do not pick up and discharge students in such a way that they need to control traffic by the use of warning lamps. They are usually not NBSC yellow and their passengers would probably average more than the 120 lb. passenger weight which is required to be used as a basis for gross vehicle weight rating certification of school buses. Also, FMVSS 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, was obviously designed for 120 lb. passengers since it effectively limits the maximum knee clearance to approximately 25". This seat spacing is entirely inadequate for college students.

Based on these facts, we are assuming that college buses are not "school buses" and are, therefore, not subject to any standards which apply to school buses. Is this assumption correct?

We are in urgent need of the answers to each of these questions since they affect decisions we must make immediately regarding seat tooling and orders which are currently being solicited. Your early response will be greatly appreciated.

W. G. Milby Staff Engineer

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY December 16, 1975

Mr. Richard Dyson Assistant Chief Counsel U. S. Dept. of Transportation NHTSA

SUBJECT: FMVSS 217, BUS WINDOW RETENTION AND RELEASE

REFERENCE: 1. N40-30 (MPP) Letter to Mr. James Tydings from R. B. Dyson dated September 25, 1973.

2. N40-33 (MPP) Letter to Mr. George R. Seamark from R. B. Dyson dated October 31, 1973.

The above references say that vehicles which share the same design as school buses but which are not used as school buses are considered to be school buses for the purposes of Standard 217 and they are therefore exempt from the emergency requirement of that standard.

We are currently evaluating the city bus market potential. The vehicles which we anticipate using for that application share many of the same design features and components as school buses. On the other hand, there are many areas of dissimilarity.

Our question is whether or not such a bus intended for city transit type usage must meet the requirements of paragraphs S5.2 and S5.2.1 of FMVSS 217.

The enclosed photograph shows a sliding window type emergency exit which we would like to propose as a potential alternative to push-out type emergency windows. Are we correct in assuming that such a configuration qualifies as a valid emergency exit provided that it meets the emergency exit release requirements of paragraph S5.3 and the emergency exit identification requirements of S5.5?

W. G. Milby Staff Engineer

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

February 20, 1976

Mr. Richard Dyson Assistant Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

SUBJECT: FMVSS 220 - SCHOOL BUS ROLLOVER PROTECTION

In S5.2b the vehicle roof for vehicles of GVWR of 10,000 lbs. or less is described as "that structure, seen in the top projected view, that coincides with the passenger and driver compartment of the vehicle."

In S5.2a which addresses vehicles of GVWR of more than 10,000 lbs., the same detailed description of the vehicle roof is not given. This detail is necessary for locating the force application plate.

Are we correct in assuming that we may locate the force application plate for vehicles with a GVWR of more than 10,000 lbs. in accordance with the definition of the "vehicle roof" which is given in the S5.2b?

W. G. Milby Staff Engineer

ID: nht73-5.20

DATE: 01/15/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 14, 1972, concerning the acceptability, under S7.4 of Standard 208, of a time delay device in a belt interlock system.

As described in your letter, the delay device would permit an occupant who has operated the belt in the correct sequence to lift off the seat while buckled for a brief period before attempting to start the vehicle. Under S7.4 as presently constituted, this action by the occupant would result in the belt's being buckled before the seat is occupied. The occupant would therefore have to unbuckle the belt and rebuckle before starting the car. A time delay device, in short, would not be allowable.

We make no comment that this situation is desirable or undesirable, but it is, however, required by the language of S7.4.

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.

December 14, 1972

Lawrence R. Schneider National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

This is to request your interpretation of MVSS 208, S7.4, Belt Interlock System.

QUESTION 1

Would a belt interlock system utilizing a time delay device, which works as shown in the enclosed illustration, in order to avoid the following situation meet MVSS 208, S7.4?

SITUATION

If a front seat occupant, after buckling his seatbelt, were to move in such a way as to lift himself from the seat for any reason before starting the engine, that person would be required to unbuckle and rebuckle in order to start the engine. This situation is not only inconvenient to the customer but also may alarm him as he may not realize why the engine does not start although he has done the proper process.

QUESTION 2

Should the abovementioned interlock system meet MVSS 208, how many seconds (3 or 5) delay ("t" see illustration) will be acceptable?

Due to a very short lead time a prompt reply would be greatly appreciated.

Satoshi Nishibori Engineering Representative Liaison Office in USA

FUNCTION OF TIME DELAY DEVICE

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 24204.rbm

Mr. Chad Compton
Monaco Coach Corporation
2700 S Nappanee Street
Elkhart, IN 46517

Dear Mr. Compton:

This responds to your letter requesting clarification of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door locks and door retention components. Specifically, you have asked whether the load requirements for latch systems on the front entry door of a motor home can be reduced if the overall door latch system is composed of two, independently operating latch and striker assemblies. The answer is no.

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

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

FMVSS No. 206 specifies certain performance requirements for door retention components. Paragraph S4.1.1 applies to all hinged side doors, other than cargo-type doors. The paragraph specifies that each door latch and striker assembly shall be provided with two positions consisting of a fully latched position and a secondary latched position. S4.1.1 then specifies that each assembly meet minimum level of force requirements for longitudinal loads (S4.1.1.1), transverse loads (S4.1.1.2), and inertial loads (S4.1.1.3). Compliance with the first two of these requirements is demonstrated using the test procedure detailed in paragraph 5 of the Society of Automotive Engineers Recommended Practice J839, Passenger Car Side Door Latch Systems, June 1991 (SAE-J839). Compliance with the third requirement is demonstrated either by agency-approved tests or in accordance with paragraph 6 of SAE-J839.

Nothing in the standard prohibits a door latch system that consists of more than one latch and striker assembly. However, because S4.1.1 applies to each latch and striker assembly rather than to each door latch system, the force requirements for longitudinal, transverse, and inertial loading must be met for each latch and striker assembly provided when the latch is engaged in both its primary and secondary position.

Should you require any additional information or assistance, please contact Rebecca MacPherson, of my staff, (202) 366-2992 or at the address given above.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel
ref:206
d.5/13/02

ID: nht93-1.19

DATE: January 26, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Paul David Wellstone -- United States Senate

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/22/92 from Paul David Wellstone to Paul J. Rice (OCC 8181)

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituents, Ms. Tutti Sherlock and Ms. Mary Bock, regarding the application of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) school bus standards to Head Start facilities.

Your constituents ask that NHTSA inform the Minnesota Department of Transportation that we do not require school bus manufacturers to provide school bus equipment, such as stop arms and special stop lights, on Head Start buses. They base this request on their belief that in 1985, NHTSA said that states may decide which regulations should apply to Head Start buses. They also believe that stop arms and lights for Head Start buses are unnecessary, and that painting Head Start buses yellow could be confusing.

We cannot provide the requested interpretation, because the understanding of your constituents is incorrect. By way of background, your constituents' concerns relate to two sets of regulations, issued under different Acts of Congress. The first of these, the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) issued under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act"), apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. NHTSA has issued a number of FMVSS's for school buses, including FMVSS's requiring these buses to have a stop arm and warning lights. The Safety Act requires that each person selling a new bus (defined in our regulations as a vehicle designed for 11 or more persons) to a primary, preprimary or secondary school must sell a bus that is certified to the FMVSS's for school buses. State law cannot change this requirement.

The question of whether Head Start facilities are "schools" under the Safety Act has been addressed by NHTSA since the beginning of the school bus FMVSS's. The agency's longstanding position is that Head Start programs are primarily educational in focus rather than custodial, and are therefore "schools" under the Safety Act. We base this conclusion on a review of the goals and functions of the Head Start program (see, e.g., 45 CFR 1304.1-3), and on past NHTSA interpretations of "school." NHTSA has stated its position that Head Start facilities are schools most recently in an August 21, 1992 letter to Mr. Chuck Anderson of the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Any new bus that is sold to a Head Start facility must have the safety features of a school bus at the time of the vehicle's sale, including the stop arm and signal lights.

However, the Safety Act does not require Head Start facilities to USE school buses or any other particular vehicle, nor does it require school buses to be painted yellow. The maintenance and operational characteristics of school buses are matters left to the individual states. (1) NHTSA's second set of school bus regulations, issued under the Highway Safety Act, is a set of recommendations to the states for developing effective pupil transportation

programs. Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, "Pupil Transportation Safety" (copy enclosed), recommends that any vehicle designed for 11 or more persons that is used as a school bus should comply with the FMVSS's for school buses and should be painted yellow. However, Guideline 17 would affect the operation of your constituents' school buses only to the extent that Minnesota has incorporated it into state law.

I hope this information will be helpful in responding to your constituents.

(1) We stated this in NHTSA's September 27, 1985 letter to Mr. Charles Pekow, to which you refer in your letter. To clarify your understanding of the letter, NHTSA stated that "The requirements for school bus OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ... are matters left to the individual states to determine. (Emphasis added.)

Attachment

Copy of Federal Register, Vol. 56, No. 81, Rules and Regulations pertaining to Part 1204.4, Pupil Transportation Safety. (Text omitted.)

ID: nht88-3.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/13/88

FROM: GLENDA SWANSON LYLE -- DIRECTOR REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DENVER COLORADO; JACK MCCROSKEY -- DIRECTOR REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT D DENVER COLORADO

TO: LARRY COOK -- SAFETY STANDARDS ENGINEER NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/09/88 TO JACK MCCROSKEY AND GLENDA SWANSON LYLE FROM ERIKA Z. JONES REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 119; LETTER DATED 08/26/88 TO MARVIN ORNES FROM R.E. MORGAN; LETTER DATED 09/09/87 TO R ROGERS FROM R.E. MORGAN, RE GOODYEAR M ILEAGE TIRES

TEXT: Dear Mr. Cook:

Thanks so much for talking with me this morning. The issue, as I'm sure you will recall, concerns the disparity between the "labeling" and the "use" of tires the Goodyear Corporation leases to Denver's Regional Transportation District for use on its fle et of approximately 750 transit buses.

By way of brief background, let me say that the RTD is an independent unit of local government, established by the Colorado General Assembly, and governed by a fifteen-person Board of Directors. The Directors, who are elected by the voters of the distri ct for four-year terms, have full legal responsibility for operating the District. The Directors hire a General Manager who is given day-to-day authority and who reports to the Board. I'm enclosing a small booklet giving some of the District's operatin g statistics for 1987.

The District provides three types of service:

1. Local. These buses operate primarily in areas where the speed limit is 35 miles per hour. However, these buses do operate for short portions of their routes where the limits range from 40 to 45 and even up to 55 miles per hour.

2. Express. These buses operate mainly--70% to 80% of the time--on local freeways where the speed limits are 55 miles per hour. Some small portion of their routes may be in 65 mile per hour limits.

3. Regional. These operate primarily in freeways where the limits run from 55 to 65 miles per hour.

2

My most pressing question for now concerns the Express buses. The tires Goodyear furnishes RTD for Local and Express use are called DXT and XT tires. The DXT tires have a maximum speed of 35 miles per hour marked on them; the XT tires have a maximum spe ed of 55 miles per hour on them.

RTD is currently using the DXT (35 miles) and the XT (55 miles) almost interchangably on the Express buses. (That is, RTD is using tires marked maximum speed 35 miles on routes where much, probably most, of the travel is at 55 miles per hour).

I am enclosing one memo and one letter, both of which are purportedly from Goodyear, saying that this practice may be acceptable. Please note that neither document is on Goodyear stationery and that neither document has the full signature of the author, or gives the author's official position in the company.

Some of us here at RTD are very much worried about the use of tires contrary to their labeling on buses carrying 40 to 70 passengers. We are also concerned by RTD's liability should an accident owing to tire failure occur.

Could you please, at your earliest possible convenience, let us know your view of the possible safety hazards and our possible legal liabilities. We would also like, should you be in a position to give it, your advice on what we should do. Should we co ntinue to use the tires contrary to their labeling? Or should we act to bring usage in conformity to labeling.

We look forward to your reply. We think quick action is essential.

Cordially,

ENCLOSURES

(Regional Transportation District Report omitted.)