ID: 3081o

Mr. Charles W. Pierson
404 Williams Street
Sturgis, MI 49091

Dear Mr. Pierson:

This responds to your letter in which you made several observations about dynamic testing requirements generally in our safety standards. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain those requirements for you.

You began by observing that this agency has been moving to replace static testing requirements (tests in which individual vehicle components are subjected to specified levels of slowly applied force in a laboratory test) with dynamic testing requirements (e.g., tests in which a vehicle is crashed into a barrier and anthropomorphic test dummies are used to measure the protection provided by the vehicle to occupants in a crash). You then suggested that there were several potential difficulties or misinterpretations that could arise with dynamic testing.

First, you asked which of the several standardized human physical dimensions should be used to determine if a vehicle complies with our safety standards that refer to a specified percentile child or adult. For instance, section S7.1.1 of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.208) requires the lap belt portion of a seat belt assembly to adjust to fit persons whose dimensions range from a 50th percentile 6 year old child to a 95th percentile adult male, while the shoulder belt portion of a seat belt assembly must adjust to fit persons whose dimensions range from a 5th percentile adult female to a 95th percentile adult male.

When our regulations refer to a specific size for a vehicle occupant, the regulations also clearly specify the dimensions and weights of the vehicle occupants to which we are referring. Section S7.1.3 of Standard No. 208 sets forth the critical weights and dimensions of all vehicle occupants referred to in that standard. The critical weights and physical dimensions for all of the anthropomorphic test dummies used to measure compliance with our safety standards are set forth in 49 CFR Part 572, Anthropomorphic Test Dummies.

Second, you noted that testing facilities will conduct crash testing, but will not certify those results. This practice on the part of the testing facilities is consistent with the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.). Section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) explicitly requires every manufacturer to certify that each of its vehicles or items of equipment conforms to all applicable safety standards. Hence, regardless of how a testing facility presents test results to a manufacturer, it is the manufacturer of the product, not the testing facility, that is statutorily responsible for certifying that each of its products complies with all applicable safety standards.

Third, you stated that "laws requiring certification usually do not require the actual crash test to be performed." You are correct to the extent that you are suggesting that the Safety Act does not require manufacturers to conduct any testing before certifying that its product complies with all applicable safety standards. The Safety Act requires only that the manufacturer exercise due care in certifying its products compliance with the safety standards. It is up to the individual manufacturer in the first instance what data, test results, computer simulations, engineering analyses, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that each of its products comply with all applicable safety standards.

However, for purposes of enforcing the safety standards, this agency conducts spot checks of products after they have been certified by the manufacturer. NHTSA purchases the products and tests them according to the procedures specified in the applicable standard. If the standard specifies a crash test, NHTSA conducts the crash test according to the specified procedures.

Fourth, you asked how you could obtain a copy of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practice J833. This and all other SAE materials can be obtained by writing to: Customer Service Department, Publications Group, SAE, 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001. The SAE's Customer Service Department can also be contacted by telephone at (402) 776-4970.

Fifth and finally, you suggested that the formula used to calculate the head injury criterion (HIC), set forth in sections S6.1.2 and S6.2.2 of Standard No. 208, is relatively complex, so the HIC could be miscalculated. It is true that any mathematical calculation can be performed incorrectly. Nevertheless, the formula for calculating the HIC yields only one correct result for any set of variables. This agency has not experienced any difficulties in calculating the proper HIC from any test results, and is not aware of any difficulties that have been encountered by any manufacturers in making such calculations. Hence, we do not believe there are any problems associated with the HIC formula.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need additional information in this area, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#208 d:l0/l7/88

ID: 86-6.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/31/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Elinor F. Wilber; Norma Gyle -- Chairpersons, State of Connecticut, Transportation Committee and Seat Belt Subcommittee

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking whether Connecticut may set performance standards for belts retrofitted to school buses. I regret the delay in responding to your letter. The answer to your question is yes.

First, we would like to distinguish between a state law which would set standards for belts voluntarily retrofitted to school buses and a state law which requires all school buses to be retrofitted with safety belts. As to the latter, Connecticut may require the retrofit installation of safety belts in school buses which the State purchases for its own use. However, as explained below, Federal law would preempt Connecticut from requiring other school buses (i.e., those used by non-public schools) to be retrofitted with safety belts.

Federal preemption of State motor vehicle safety regulations is governed by section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 which states:

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard under this subchapter is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the Federal Government or the government of any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard.

The first sentence of section 103(d) has the effect of preempting safety standards of the States and their political subdivisions that regulate the same aspect of vehicle or equipment performance as a Federal safety standard unless they are identical to that safety standard. The second sentence of the section provides that the limitation on safety standards does not prevent governmental entities from specifying nonidentical safety requirements for vehicles procured for their own use. However, the second sentence does not permit these governmental entities to specify safety features that prevent the vehicle or equipment from complying with applicable Federal safety standards.

It is our opinion that a state standard which requires all school buses to be retrofitted with safety belts has the effect of mandating the installation of safety belts in all large school buses operating in that state. Since such a standard regulates the same aspect of performance as the Federal standard for school bus occupant crash protection (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 222) and would not be identical to the Federal requirements for "compartmentalization," we believe it would be preempted under the first sentence of section 103(d). However, a state is not prohibited from requiring the retrofit installation of safety belts in school buses procured by the State or its political subdivisions (i.e., public school buses) as long as the Federal requirements for compartmentalization are not violated.

Connecticut may set performance requirements for safety belts voluntarily installed on used school buses, such as for the amount of force the anchorages must be capable of withstanding. As you know, we are currently considering an amendment to FMVSS No. 222 to set performance requirements for voluntarily-installed safety belts on new school buses with gross vehicle weight ratings over 10,000 pounds. However, since such an amendment, if adopted, would only affect new school buses and no Federal safety standard establishes performance requirements for retrofitting safety belts, Connecticut would not be preempted from establishing requirements for belts that are voluntarily-installed on used buses. Keep in mind, however, that a state should ensure that its requirements do not prevent vehicles from complying with Federal safety standards. Since FMVSS No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, specifies requirements for belt assemblies used in motor vehicles, Connecticut must not issue a standard for belt assemblies for nonpublic school buses that is not identical to Standard No. 209.

I hope this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact my office if you have further questions.

ID: 006307drn

The Honorable Sue Myrick
U.S. House of Representatives
319 South Street, Suite B
Gastonia, NC 29052

Dear Representative Myrick:

Thank you for your letter of August 15, 2003, requesting information on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Keith Smith, of the First United Methodist Church in Gastonia. Mr. Smith is concerned about the 15-passenger vans used by the church and wishes to know if there is a "government policy" that 15-passenger vans "will be considered unsafe unless the last 2 back seats are removed from the van." As explained below, neither the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) nor any other Federal agency has found 15-passenger vans to be "unsafe," regardless of whether seats are removed from the vans.

By way of background, NHTSA is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles. Our statute at 49 U.S.C. '30112 requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable FMVSSs. By NHTSAs definition, 15-passenger vans are "buses" - motor vehicles "with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons." Thus, all 15-passenger vans must meet NHTSAs FMVSSs applicable to buses.

Although the vehicles are not considered "unsafe," the way some 15-passenger vans may be driven may subject occupants to an increased risk of rollover crashes. On April 15, 2002, NHTSA Administrator Jeffrey W. Runge, M.D., reissued a cautionary warning to 15-passenger van users because of an increased rollover risk under certain conditions. NHTSA research has shown that 15-passenger vans have a rollover risk that increases dramatically as the number of occupants increases from fewer than five to more than ten. In fact, 15-passenger vans (with 10 or more occupants) had a rollover rate in single vehicle crashes that is nearly three times the rate of those that were lightly loaded.

Dr. Runge advised 15-passenger van users to be aware of the following safety precautions in order to significantly reduce the rollover risk:

• It is important that 15-passenger vans be operated by trained, experienced drivers.

• All occupants must wear seat belts at all times. Eighty percent of those who died in 15-passenger van rollovers nationwide in the year 2000 were not buckled up. Wearing seat belts dramatically increases the chances of survival during a rollover crash. In fatal, single-vehicle rollovers involving 15-passenger vans over the past decade, 92 percent of belted occupants survived.

I am enclosing copies of the consumer advisory, a NHTSA study on "The Rollover Propensity of Fifteen-Passenger Vans," and a flyer, "Reducing the Risk of Rollover Crashes in 15-Passenger Vans."

Because the Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply only to manufacturers and sellers of new motor vehicles, we do not regulate how a church must transport its congregation. However, each State has the authority to set its own standards regarding the use of motor vehicles, including 15-passenger vans. For this reason, North Carolina law should be consulted to see if there are regulations about how children or adult members of a church must be transported.

I hope this information is helpful. If you or Mr. Smith have any further questions about 15-passenger vans safety or about NHTSA's programs, please feel free to contact me at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:VSA
d.9/10/03

ID: nht71-5.33

DATE: 12/27/71

FROM: R. L. CARTER -- NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY E. DRIVER

TO: American Safety Belt Council

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of December 3, 1971, regarding seat belt buckle requirements.

Your interpretation that push-button buckles are not mandatory on seat belts offered for sale as replacement parts after January 1, 1972, is correct. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, specifies that seat belts, installed in passenger cars after January 1, 1972, must have latch mechanisms that release by push-button action. It does not apply to replacement belts.

If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.

ID: nht91-1.41

DATE: February 14, 1991

FROM: Michael L. Harmon -- President, Classic Interiors

TO: Paul J. Rice -- Chief Console

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-12-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Michael L. Harmon (A38; Std. 213)

TEXT:

It was brought to my attention after having a conversation with Dee Fujita that the built in child restraint system (photo enclosed) we developed and tested to FMVSS 213 for use in multi purpose passenger vehicles may or may not comply with code 213's definition and/or application of built in child restraint systems. If you could please clarify S4. of Part 571 of FMVSS 213 defining a "build in child restraint system" as to whether or not the use as an"integral part of a passenger car" includes multi purpose passenger vehicles. If it is considered part of please advise if not what can I do to encourage the inclusion of multi purpose passenger vehicles in the code 213 test standards.

Attachment

CHILD RESTRAINT SYSTEM TEST RESULTS

Tests conducted for CLASSIC INTERIORS

Purchase order M. Harmon

TEST NUMBERS: HF 9003-07 Testing date: October 25-30, 1990

The University of Michigan Medical School Department of Surgery, Pediatric Surgery Section

Child Passenger Protection Research Program c/o UMTRI, 2901 Baxter Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48109

Test methods and data limitations and use. (Text omitted)

CHILD RESTRAINT SYSTEM Test Number: HF 9007 TEST DATA SUMMARY Test Date: 10/30/90 Model: Hassel Free Safety Seat integrated in Classic Interiors chair, Dygert frame with stop pins, Atwood track, Monitor reinforced pedistal

Manufacturing Status: experimental

SET-UP

Part 572 3-year-old Frontal impact Forward facing 30 mph, 20 G Chair full rearward Seatback at 4th detent

RESULTS Average Velocity 30.5 mph Acceleration 20.4 G

Buckle Release Force Pre-Test NA Post-Test NA

Head Excursion 27.4 in. Knee Excursion 20.0 in.

Head Injury Criterion 343 Interval 85 to 188 ms Chest Peak Resultant 32 G Duration over 60 G 0 ms

Seatback/Cushion Angle Maximum 62 deg.

Post-Test 83 deg. (right)

Comments: No head/leg contact. Seatback latch operational after test. More seatback rotation on left side, where back of-frame slipped past stop.

Sled Profile and Head Acceleration and Chest Acceleration Graphs dated 10-30-90. (Graphs omitted)

Brochure describing the Classic Safety Seating System. (Text and photos omitted.)

Copy of Federal Register, section 571.1. (Text omitted.)

Copy of 49 CFR Part 571, dated 3-23-87, proposed rules dealing with FMVSS - Child Restraint Systems. (Text omitted.)

Copy of 49 CFR Part 571, dated 1-22-88, final rule. (Text omitted.)

Copy of Part 552.1-552.9 petitions for rulemaking, defect & noncompliance orders. (Text omitted.)

ID: aiam0123

Dear Mr. Dahlke: Thank you for your letter of October 24, 1968, concerning glazin materials in your recreational vehicles.; FHWA Ruling 68-1, published in the *Federal Register* on March 26 1968, (33 FR 5020) specified that campers must meet the requirements of Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*. Copies of FHWA Ruling 68-1 and Standard No. 205 are enclosed.; We do not have any provision for exempting certain windows from th requirements of Standard No. 205 because of their foldaway position during transport. It is true, also, that your camper could be transported in the erected condition. Therefore, all glazing materials in the camper must meet the requirements of Standard No. 205.; Travel trailers are not included in the application of Standard No 205, hence, do not have to meet the safety glazing requirements.; Sincerely, Clue D. Ferguson, Director, Office of Standards o Crash-Injury Reduction, Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service;

ID: 18165.135

Mr. Peter Böhm
Manager Regulations
ITT Automotive Europe GmbH
Postfach 90 01 20
60441 Frankfurt am Main
Hausadresse: Guerickstraße 7
60488 Frankfurt am Main, Germany

Dear Mr. Böhm:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter to this office in which you asked whether parking brake systems your company is developing comply with the requirements of paragraph S5.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) No. 135, Light vehicle brake systems.

You stated that ITT is developing parking brake systems that are activated electrically. One version consists of an electrically-activated disc brake. You stated that when the vehicle is locked in a parking position by a friction-type brake, an interlock device is actuated to lock the wheels or the gearbox. Then, when the interlock has reached its locking position, the friction brake is released. You stated, therefore, that the parking brake is of a friction type and the vehicle is held with solely mechanical means. You also stated that it is the interlock device and not the friction brake that holds the vehicle stationary. You further stated that unlike ECE R-13 and 72/320 EEC, Standard No. 135 has only static requirements for the parking brake. You commented, however, that the requirement to use a friction brake as a parking brake might be something like a dynamic requirement because it makes activation of the parking brake possible while the vehicle is still moving. Also, you stated that if this was the intention to require a friction brake for the parking brake, the interlock device should be allowed to hold the vehicle stationary provided that dynamic application is ensured by other means. You then asked whether such a system meets the requirements of S5.2, Standard No. 135. The answer is no.

As you probably know, Standard No. 135 is a new standard. Compliance will become mandatory for passenger cars manufactured on and after September 1, 2000, and for multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with gross vehicle weight ratings of 3,500 kilograms (7,716 pounds) or less manufactured on and after September 1, 2002. Until those dates, vehicle manufacturers have the option of complying either with Standard No. 135 or Standard No. 105, Hydraulic brake systems.

Paragraph S5.2 of Standard No. 135 was patterned after paragraph S5.2 of Standard No. 105 and provides that "Each vehicle shall be equipped with a parking brake system of a friction type with solely mechanical means to retain engagement." The term "parking brake" is defined in 49 Code of Federal Regulations 571.3 as "a mechanism designed to prevent the movement of a stationary motor vehicle." Thus, with respect to paragraph S5.2 of Standard No. 135, the parking brake must prevent the movement of a stationary motor vehicle by means of friction. Your design, however, would prevent movement of a stationary vehicle by means of the interlock device rather than by friction. I also note that, under S5.2, the parking brake system must have a "solely mechanical means to retain engagement," meaning that although the parking brake may be applied and released by non-mechanical means, it must be held by solely mechanical means. It cannot be held by non-mechanical means such as fluid, air, or electricity.

With respect to your comment that the requirement for a friction brake resembles a dynamic requirement because it makes activation possible while the vehicle is still moving, NHTSA has addressed that issue. In our Notice of Proposed Rulemaking of May 10, 1985 (50 Federal Register (FR) 19744), and again in our Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking of January 14, 1987 (52 FR 1474), the agency proposed a dynamic test intended to ensure that a driver could use the parking brake to stop a moving vehicle in emergency situations. Several commenters opposed that proposal, arguing that the purpose of parking brakes is to statically hold a vehicle in place, not to decelerate a moving vehicle. They stated that it could be dangerous for drivers to apply parking brakes in dynamic situations because of the difficulty of modulating the application force, which could lead to uncontrollable rear wheel lockup and loss of vehicle control. NHTSA was persuaded by those comments and in the final rule of February 2, 1995 (60 FR 6411), withdrew the proposal to require a parking brake dynamic test.

You stated that your system uses a friction-type brake until the interlock device has reached its locking position, after which the friction brake is released. Whether or not the interlock device is a mechanical means, Standard No. 135 requires the parking brake to be of a friction type. Therefore, if the interlock device disengages the friction brake, the system does not comply with Standard No. 135.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992, or fax at (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:105#135
d.12/22/98

ID: nht71-5.12

DATE: 12/03/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your inquiry concerning the certification required of seat belts installed in motor vehicles manufactured after January 1, 1972, has been brought to our attention. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, which governs the installation of seat belts, requires belts to conform to Standard No. 209. Since Standard No. 209 is amended effective January 1, 1972, your question is whether a vehicle manufactured after that date must have seat belts that are certified as conforming to the new provisions of Standard No. 209.

We construe Standard No. 208 to require only that the belts conform to Standard No. 209 as it was at the time of their manufacture. Thus, a belt manufactured before January 1 that conforms to the contemporaneous (pre-amendment) version of Standard No. 209 may be installed in a vehicle manufactured after that date. A belt manufactured after January 1, must, of course, conform to the amended version of the standard.

ID: nht76-3.49

DATE: 03/15/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bock Products, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 11, 1976, question whether two trailer designs you describe would qualify as "Heavy Hauler Trailer[s]" as defined in Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. A copy of that definition is enclosed for your information.

Both of your trailer designs include a primary cargo-carrying surface that inclines from a height of 24 inches in the rear to a height of 47 inches in the front of the trailer. In one case, part of the inclined portion is removable, leaving a 6-foot length of the surface that is flat and 40 inches above the ground in the unloaded condition. In both cases somewhat more than one-half of the primary cargo-carrying surface is 40 inches or less in height.

The exclusion from Standard No. 121 for heavy hauler trailers applies (in relevant part) only to trailers "whose primary cargo-carrying surface is not more than 40 inches above the ground in an unloaded condition." The trailer designs you describe would not qualify for the exclusion, because only a portion of the surface qualifies as "not more than 40 inches above the ground."

SINCERELY,

BOCK PRODUCTS, INC.

Feb. 11, 1976

Office of the Chief Council NHTSA

Att: M.J. Herlihy

Mr. Sydney Williams of NHTSA suggested we write for a ruling on the enclosed designs to see if they would be exempt from the FMVSS #121.

They appear to fall within the description of the "Heavy Hauler Trailer", in that the bed height is below 40" over the primary cargo carrying length of the trailer.

However, to be sure of our position we are in need of a ruling by your office.

These designs would be used in the recreational vehicle industry as transporters for manufacturers of travel trailers and mini-motor homes.

Design #2 describes a 6'-0" section of removable ramp which would be left in position when transporting their product. It would install by pins at both ends.

We require your immediate attention on this matter as a rush order is pending.

Robert Fisher Sales Engineer/Coordinator

PROPOSED DESIGN PROFILE #2

DATE: 2-10-76

BOCK PRODUCTS 1901 W.HIVELY AVE. ELKHART, IND. 46514

NOTE! GROUND HEIGHT DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE UNLOADED HEIGHTS

(Graphics omitted)

PROPOSED DESIGN PROFILE #1

DATE: 2-10-76

BOCK PRODUCTS

1901 W. HIVELY AVE. ELKHART, IND. 46514

NOTE! GROUND HEIGHT DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE UNLOADED HEIGHT

(Graphics omitted)

ID: aiam1387

Dear Mrs. Thompson: I would like to thank you for your interest in the safety benefits o the interlock system and for forwarding the Seattle newspaper advertisement which offers a method to bypass the seat belt interlock.; The interlock standard only requires that new vehicles be equipped wit required safety equipment. Therefore a purchaser may have the system modified to accommodate circumstances, such as physical incapacity, which makes use of the belts unwise or inconvenient.; The advertisement of a system to circumvent the standard, however, is different matter, and whether it is legally permitted is a conclusion which the courts will have to determine. This agency is reviewing the legal remedies available which might permit removal of such a product from the market. Having promulgated the interlock option as part of the occupant crash protection standard, whose validity was sustained in court, we are committed to taking all possible actions to insure its effectiveness.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel