ID: aiam3715

Dear Mr. Robson: This responds to your recent letter requesting an interpretatio concerning the test procedures of Safety Standard No. 207. You ask whether a seat in a heavy duty truck must remain in its adjusted position when tested with a load of 20 times the weight of the entire seat, if the seat has been tested and remains in its adjusted position when subject to a load of 20 times the weight of the adjustable upper section of the seat.; This question arises because of the configuration of some heavy-dut truck seats which include suspension fixtures (pedestal structures) on which the upper seat section rests. Safety Standard No. 207 requires seats to withstand a load equal to 20 times their weight and requires the seats to remain in their adjusted position during the requried loading (paragraph S4.2). The upper seat sections and adjusters of your truck seats are tested on rigid test beds by the seat manufacturer and reportedly comply with the adjuster provision of S4.2. However, when you test these seats in the actual vehicle (applying 20 times the weight of the entire seat, including pedestal), the center of gravity falls on the seat adjuster and the seat does not always stay in its adjusted position during loading.; The answer to your specific question, the seat must remain in it adjusted position when tested to 20 times the weight of the entire seat, as required by paragraph S4.2 of the standard. We would agree with you, however, that with a seat configuration such as you describe, the adjusters and upper seat section would never experience a loading of 20 times the weight of the *entire* seat in an actual crash. Your problem appears to arise because the center of gravity of this seat happens to fall on the seat adjusters and the standard requires the loading to be applied through the center of gravity. The purpose of this loading requirement, however, is to ensure the integrity of the entire seat as it is attached to the vehicle structure.; Therefore, it is our opinion that for a pedestal seat such as yo describe, a manufacturer could establish due care through a combined test procedure which would load the seat adjusters and upper seat section to only 20 times the weight of those components to determine if the seat would remain in its adjusted position, and which would load the seat as anchored to the vehicle structure to 20 times the weight of the entire seat, including the pedestal. Please contact Hugh Oates of my staff if you have any further questions (202-426-2992).; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5555

"Dear Mr. Pennington: This responds to your letter concerning the rea seats of a 1979 Porsche 911 SC, which were not equipped with any type of seat belt. You asked two questions relating to whether these seats should have been equipped with seat belts. Your questions are addressed below. 1. Did the manufacturer's designation of 'two front' passenger seats eliminate any obligation on the part of the manufacturer to provide seat belts in the rear seats under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208? As explained below, a manufacturer's designation that a vehicle has two front seats does not eliminate the obligation to provide seat belts at rear seats, if those positions are 'designated seating positions.' By way of background information, The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to establish Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), which specifies performance requirements for the protection of vehicle occupants in crashes. Standard No. 208 required passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1973 and before September 1, 1986, to have either a Type 1 (lap) or Type 2 (lap/shoulder) seat belt assembly at each rear 'designated seating position.' The term 'designated seating position' is defined at 49 CFR 571.3. For vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1980, the term 'designated seating position' was defined as: any plan view location intended by the manufacturer to provide seating accommodation while the vehicle is in motion, for a person at least as large as a fifth percentile adult female, except auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats. In a May 22, 1978, notification to vehicle manufacturers, the agency stated that manufacturers are responsible for determining the number of seating positions that are in the vehicle. The agency also stated: This does not mean, however, that the manufacturer's designation will be accepted by the agency if there are additional, obvious seating positions that are likely to be used by occupants while the vehicle is in motion. The agency unquestionably intends to require protection for all vehicle occupants. Thus, a manufacturer's specification that a vehicle has two front seats did not eliminate Standard No. 208's requirement for a seat belt assembly at each rear seat, if those locations met the above definition. 2. Did the Porsche 911 SC comply with, or did it violate, the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208? NHTSA cannot make a determination as to whether a vehicle complied with applicable safety standards outside a compliance proceeding. However, I can advise you of the factors the agency would look at to determine if the rear locations are designated seating positions. If those locations are designated seating positions, they should have been equipped with a seat belt assembly when originally manufactured. The May 22, 1978, notice provides a good summary of the agency's position. That notice states: the agency will consider any position ... capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a fifth percentile adult female to be a 'designated seating position', if the overall seat configuration and design is such that the manufacturer knows the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion. I note that the hip breadth of a sitting fifth percentile female is approximately 13 inches, and the sitting height is approximately 31 inches. These are the measurements NHTSA would consider in determining whether a position is capable of accommodating a fifth percentile female. I hope this information has been helpful. If you have other questions or need some additional information, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures";

ID: aiam0786

Dear Mr. Lundstrom: Your letter of July 11, 1972, raises two substantive question concerning the belt system requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208.; The first question concerns S7.4.1, which provides that the engin starting system shall not be operable 'unless the belt system at each occupied front position is operated after the occupant is seated.' You ask whether a system that you submitted for our inspection, which does not use electronic logic circuits, would conform to this requirement.; The belt system in question is designed to make it quite difficult t enter the vehicle if the belt system is fastened. The occupant is thus forced to unfasten the belt (if it has been left fastened) to enter the vehicle, then to fasten it in order to start the engine. The system employs an inboard- mounted shoulder belt with the outboard attachment point for the lap and shoulder belts mounted in the door. The ignition system employs a buckle switch, so that the belt must be buckled for the engine to start. Upon entering the vehicle, an occupant may find that the belt is either buckled or unbuckled, depending on the action of the previous occupant, but if it is buckled, he will find entry difficult if he does not first unbuckle it. After evaluating the system, we have concluded that the occupant is essentially compelled to operate the belt system after being seated in order to start the car. The system therefore conforms to the requirements of S7.4.1.; In view of the lack of logic circuits, we urge that the design of th buckle be given careful attention, to prevent defeat of the system by the insertion of objects into the buckle.; Your second question concerns the acceptability of belts which requir 'some action during normal vehicle entry or egress' under the requirements for passive belts. As presently drafted, S4.5.3 does not permit such belts to be classified as passive belts. We will treat your request for amendment of this requirement as a petition for rulemaking and give it prompt consideration.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs;

ID: aiam1663

Dear Mr. Myers: This responds to your October 22, 1974, question whether the languag of S5.3.1(b) and S5.3.2(b) in Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems*, exempts all liftable, nonsteerable axles from the 'no lockup' requirements of the standard. You specifically ask whether a liftable, nonsteerable 'tag' axle and 'pusher' axle would be exempt if they were both mounted on a vehicle equipped with a single nonliftable, nonsteerable axle or with tandem nonliftable, nonsteerable axles.; The sections in question permit 'lockup of wheels on nonsteerable axle other than the two rearmost nonliftable, nonsteerable axles on a vehicle with more than two nonsteerable axles.' This language is limited to vehicles which have more than two nonsteerable axles and therefore a liftable axle on a vehicle with only one other nonsteerable axle would not be exempt. Such a combination can be found on some intercity buses.; In both of the examples you describe the vehicle has more than tw nonsteerable axles, and therefore the language of S5.3.1(b) and S5.3.2(b) would exempt the tag and pusher axles from the 'no lockup' requirements of the standard. I would like to emphasize, however, that our language is intended to require 'no lockup' performance on not less than two nonsteerable axles of any vehicle with at least two nonsteerable axles. We did not contemplate the unlikely configuration of a single fixed axle and two liftable axles which you cite as an example. If a safety problem arises with this configuration, we would consider an amendment of the standard to require 'no lockup' performance of two of these axles.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4572

"Dear Mr. Wolpe: Thank you for your letter to former Secretary Burnle on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Dennis Furr of Lansing, Michigan. I've been asked to respond to your letter since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for administering Federal programs relating to school bus safety. Mr. Furr is concerned about the potential safety problems that may result if school bus seats are being overloaded. In particular, Mr. Furr asks whether NHTSA's Highway Safety Program Guideline (HSPG) No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety (23 CFR /1204.4), is consistent with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.222), with regard to seating specifications. Mr. Furr is particularly interested in how manufacturers are calculating the number of seating positions on a bench seat. I am pleased to address your constituent's concerns. Before I begin, I want to note that we have answered a number of similar inquiries from Mr. Furr in past years. We have two sets of 'regulations' for school buses. The first, issued under the Vehicle Safety Act, includes our motor vehicle safety standards which apply to the manufacture and sale of new school buses. Compliance with these standards is mandatory for new vehicle manufacturers, and is enforced by this agency with civil penalties. FMVSS No. 222, with which your constituent is concerned, is one such safety standard. The second set of 'regulations,' or guidelines, for school buses was issued under the Highway Safety Act. Guidelines issued under this Act are not mandatory for the states, rather, they are recommended practices. Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, to which Mr. Furr frequently refers in his letter, consists of recommendations to the States for operating their school buses and pertains to Federal funding of State highway safety programs. Both FMVSS No. 222 and Guideline No. 17 contain specifications for school bus seating. Paragraph S4.1 of FMVSS No. 222 states: 'The number of seating positions considered to be in a bench seat is expressed by the symbol W, and calculated as the bench width in inches divided by 15 and rounded to the nearest whole number.' The guideline for seating accommodations in HSPG 17 states: Seating should be provided that will permit each occupant to sit in a seat in a plan view lateral location, intended by the manufacturers to provide seating accommodation for a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, as defined in 49 CFR 571.3. Mr. Furr appears to see a conflict between the formula used in calculating the forces to be applied to the seats of large school buses under FMVSS No. 222, on the one hand, and the use by States and manufacturers of 13-inch seating positions for rating the capacity of a 39-inch seat, on the other hand. I believe that Mr. Furr's belief in the existence of a conflict rests on a misunderstanding. We view Standard No. 222 and HSPG 17 as complementary, not inconsistent. HSPG 17 reflects NHTSA's belief that all school bus passengers should be seated in the interest of safety. To that end, the guideline provides that there should be a seating position for each passenger and that the position should be at least large enough to accommodate a 5th percentile adult female. The hip width (sitting) of a 5th percentile adult female is 12.8 inches. The figure '15' in FMVSS No. 222's compliance formula is not a minimum requirement for the width of a seating position. It is the number which is used to establish the number of designated seating positions and ensures that the forces applied to the seat during compliance tests are reasonable reflections of the crash forces that would be involved in a real-world crash. It is also the number which ensures that the width of the smallest seat is approximately equal to the hip width of the 5th percentile female. That is consistent with HSPG 17 which provides that seating positions shall be at least large enough for a 5th percentile female. Use of the figure '15' in the FMVSS No. 222 formula results in a minimum seating position width of 12.67 inches (for a 38-inch wide seat.) That is only slightly smaller than the 12.8 inch hip width of the 5th percentile female. For a 39-inch wide seat, the single position width is 13 inches, which is slightly larger than the hip width of a 5th percentile female. It should be remembered, however, that the number of seating positions derived from the FMVSS No. 222 formula is not meant to be a measure of the absolute capacity of the bus for all size occupants. We recognize that, in practice, school buses transport a tremendously wide variety of student sizes. For example, a bus that may be capable of easily accommodating 65 preschool or elementary students may be capable of carrying only 43 high school students. When the bus is used to transport students of widely varying ages and sizes, reasonable accommodations may vary between those values. The decision on how many passengers may be comfortably and safely accommodated, therefore, is a decision that must be reached by the bus operator, in light of the ages and sizes of passengers involved. NHTSA does not have the authority under either the Highway Safety Act or Vehicle Safety Act to regulate how States use school buses. Therefore, NHTSA could not preclude a State from carrying more passengers on a bench seat than there are designated seating positions. However, this agency agrees with Mr. Furr that a student should not sit on a seat unless the student can sit fully on the seat instead of sitting only partially on the seat and thus only being partially protected by the compartmentalization. We believe that Mr. Furr's concerns as they apply to public schools would be best addressed by his working with the local school board and state officials. Mr. Furr is also concerned about a reference in our occupant crash protection standard (No. 208) to a 95th-percentile adult male occupant size. He asks why FMVSS No. 222 uses a 15-inch seat dimension, when FMVSS No. 208 references the 95th-percentile adult male occupant size in specifying occupant sizes which safety belts must adjust to fit. Both FMVSS No. 208 and FMVSS No. 222 are directed at providing occupant crash protection. Both of these standards set forth comprehensive requirements that are directed at protecting occupants likely to be inside a vehicle in a crash. With regard to school buses, the agency determined that the crash protection requirements should be developed taking into account the full size range of passengers typically riding on school buses. If we designed the force and deflection (energy-absorbing) characteristics of the seats for the 95th percentile males, the seats may be too stiff for a small child. Finally, Mr. Furr asks whether, when voluntarily installing safety belts on large school buses, States are violating Federal law by using S4.1 of FMVSS No. 222 in determining how many positions (and belts) there are on a bench seat. The answer is no. FMVSS No. 222 requires safety belts only for the passenger positions of small (10,000 pounds or less GVWR) school buses. Under S5 of the standard, belts on a small school bus bench seat are installed at 'W' seating positions, as determined under S4.1. If a State wishes to order belts on its new large school bus and to use the same method for determining the number of belts to be installed, the State may do so. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Diane K. Steed";

ID: aiam4285

Dear Mr. Fahl: This responds to your letter to Dr. Richard Strombotne, the chief o our Crashworthiness Division. In your letter, you posed three questions about child restraint systems. I will answer those questions in the order you presented them.; >>>1. Does NHTSA have information as to where a family with tw children 3 years of age or under should put the second of two child restraint systems, assuming that the safest place for one is the middle of the rear seat?<<<; NHTSA has not specifically addressed this topic in any of ou regulations or recommendations. We believe, however, that in this situation both child restraint systems should be placed in the rear seat. This belief is based on the generally greater distance from the rear seat to the interior surface in front of that seat and the fact that the interior surface in front of the rear seat is primarily the rear of the front seats. The rear of the front seats tends to be a less hostile surface than the dashboard. Additionally, crash data show that all vehicle occupants (both adults and children) suffer fewer injuries and fatalities in the rear seating positions than in the front seating positions.; >>>2. Has NHTSA developed any rules or regulations suggesting o requiring that manufacturers of child restraint systems advise the consumer where to put a second child restraint, assuming that two children under 3 years of age will be occupying a motor vehicle at the same time and also assuming that neither child restraint system is a backward facing system?<<<; No, NHTSA has not impose any such requirements. With respect to chil restraints manufactured before August 12, 1986, section S5.6.1 of Standard No. 213, *Child Restraint Systems* (49 CFR S571.213) specified that: 'The instructions shall state that the rear center seating position is the safest seating positions to most vehicles for installing a child restraint system.' For child restraints manufactured on or after August 12, 1986, section S5.6.1 requires: 'The instructions shall state that, for maximum safety protection, child restraint system should be installed in a rear seating position in vehicle with two rear seating positions and in the center rear seating position in vehicles with such a seating position.'; NHTSA has somewhat modified its position about the rear *center seating position being the safest place to install a child restraint system in a recent rulemaking action amending Standard No. 210, *Seat Belt Assembly anchorages* (49 CFR S571.210). Please note that this standard applies only to vehicle manufacturers, and not to child restraint manufacturers. However, in an August 19, 1986 rule 951 FR 29552, copy enclosed), section S6(b) of Standard No. 210 requires the owners manual for vehicles manufactured after September 1, 1987 to state that 'according to accident statistics, children are safer when properly restrained in the rear seating positions that in the front seating positions.' We are currently considering whether Standard No. 213 should be amended to include similar language. However, neither of these requirements specifically addresses the situation where two child restraints are to be installed in the same vehicle.; >>>3. Has NHTSA done studies to determine that the right fron passenger seat is not an appropriate place for a child restraint system and, if so, what are the results of those studies?<<<; No study of which we are aware, whether done by this agency or an other party, suggests that the right front passenger seat is not an appropriate place for a child restraint system. In fact, those studies of which were are aware indicate that a properly installed child restraint system in the right front passenger seat will afford the child occupant a high level of safety protection in a crash situation. The safety protection can be maximized by properly installing the child restraint in a rear seating position, but we are aware of no basis for stating that the right front passenger seat is not an appropriate place for a child restraint system.; If you have any further questions on this subject need mor information, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4341

Dear Mr. Sornson: Thank You for your letter requesting an interpretation of the tes procedure used in the latchplate access test of Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*. I regret the delay in our response. You specifically asked for an interpretation of the requirement of S10.6 of the standard that a vehicle's seat shall be placed 'in its forwardmost adjustment position' when determining whether a vehicle meets the latchplate reach requirements of S7.4.4 of the standard. You asked whether in conducting the test, Chrysler should move a manually adjusted bench or bucket seat to its forward seat track 'stop' and move a power bench or bucket seat to its 'full forward' and 'full down' position. As explained below, both a manually adjusted seat and a power adjusted seat should be moved to its full forward position or full forward seat track stop. However, S7.4.4 of the standard does not currently address how the seat is to be vertically adjusted. The agency has recently received a petition from the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association asking the agency to address the general issue of positioning adjustable power seats for the purposes of Standard No. 208. If the petition is granted, we will address the issue of vertical placement of the seat for the purposes of S7.4.4. In the interim, the agency will conduct its compliance testing for S7.4.4 in the following manner. The agency will first place the seat in the vertical adjustment position used by the manufacturer in its certification test. Then the agency will move the seat horizontally to its full forward position.; You noted that several of the comfort and convenience requirements o the standard specifically provide that a seat is to be moved to its full forward and full down position. For example S7.4.3, which sets out the belt contact force requirements, and S7.4.5, which sets out the safety belt retraction requirements, specifically provide that the seat is to be tested under the conditions of S8.1.2 of the standard. In turn, S8.1.2 provides that adjustable seats that are capable of vertical adjustment are to be placed in their lowest position.; However, the latchplate access requirements of S7.4.4 of the standar does not have a reference to positioning a seat in accordance with S8.1.2 of the standard. Instead, it specifies only that the seat shall be placed in its full forward adjustment position. Thus, in determining a seat's full forward position for the purposes of S7.4.4, the agency will follow the following procedure. Since the standard does not prescribe a vertical position for the seat, the agency will use the vertical position use by the manufacturer in its certification tests. The agency will then move a power seat horizontally to its full forward position.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: 86-3.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/01/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: A.D. Fish

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. A. D. Fish Road Transport Division Ministry of Transportation Aurora House 62 The Terrace Wellington, New Zealand

Dear Mr. Fish:

We regret the delay in responding to your letter (14/1/9) dated September 18, 1985, to Mr. Francis Armstrong requesting information in relation to our compliance test report number 213-CAL-83-011-33-011. Your letter was referred to my office.

In your letter you asked for an interpretation of Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, regarding the reason for the test laboratory marking two parts of the test procedure as not applicable to your child restraint. The answers to your specific questions are as follows:

1. Page 12--Resistance to Microorganisms. Polyester and nylon, which comprise 100% of all vehicle seat belt and child seat harness webbing, are inherently resistant to microorganisms. Therefore, in an exercise of its prosecutorial discretion, the agency has thus far chosen not to conduct this test on nylon and polyester belts. If a child restraint harness or vehicle seat belt were found to be made of cotton or some other fibrous material, the resistance to microorganisms test would be conducted on those materials. In addition, the agency reserves the authority to test nylon and polyester belts as well, although it has no plans to do so.

2. Page 26--S5.4.3.3. Seating Systems. The requirements of S5.4.3.3 apply to child restraints that are "designed for use by a child in a seated position." Infant restraints are designed to place the child in a rear-facing, semi-recumbent position instead of a seated position and therefore S5.4.3.3 is not applicable to them. Since infant restraints are rear-facing, the major forces acting on the child's body from vehicle deceleration are exerted by the foam liner/plastic shell instead of the belt system. In addition, all infant restraints on the market are equipped with a three-point harness system (shoulder belt/crotch strap) to position the child and hold him or her in the restraint during rebound.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

modifies its own vehicles. Since a vehicle owner is free under the Safety Act to alter its own vehicles, any such action by Wayne County or its school systems does not violate the Safety not or render them subject to any penalty under the Act. On the other hand, Wayne County's conversion of the vans would, of course, still have to comply with any applicable state laws.

If you have further questions, please contact my office.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

14/1/9 ROAD TRANSPORT DIVISION

18 September 1985

AIRMAIL

Contract Technical Manager Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Dear Sir

We are experiencing some difficulty in interpreting FMVSS 213 in relation to your report number 213-CAL-83-011 and would be glad of any assistance you may be able to give us in this regard. The two points of difficulty are as follows: 1. Page 12. Resistance to micro-organisms.

The report lists this as N/A. However, my copy of FMVSS 213, S5.4.1(b) indicates that S4.3(e) to (h) of FMVSS 209 apply. (Presumably meaning S4.2).

2. Page 26. S5.4.3.3. Seating Systems.

FMVSS 213 seems to require upper torso and lower torso restraints, but the report lists this section as N/A and the restraint system does not seem to comply.

Your advice on the above points would be greatly appreciated.

Yours faithfully

A.D. Fish for Director, Road Transport Division

18I5/Trl

ID: aiam4267

Dear Ms. Cunningham: This is in response to your letter of November 5, 1986, concerning th new Federal odometer law and the Washington Attorney General's proposed legislation.; As you know, on October 28, 1986, President Reagan signed into law th Truth in Mileage Act of 1986, P.L. 99-579, which amends Title IV of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, 15 U.S.C. S 1981 *et seq*. Beginning April 29, 1989, a motor vehicle may not be licensed in a State unless the transferee includes with the application for title the transferor's title. If the transferor's title contains the space for the transferor to disclose the mileage as required by Federal regulation, the mileage disclosure must be included on the title and it must be signed and dated by the transferor. If the transferor's title does not contain a space for the transferor to disclose the mileage, the transferor must issue a separate odometer disclosure statement. In addition, the law provides that, beginning April 29, 1989, all motor vehicle titles issued must meet the following requirements.; >>>1. Titles must be set forth by means of a secure printing process o other secure process.; 2. Titles must indicate required mileage disclosure information. 3. Titles must contain space for the transferee to disclose, in th event of future transfer, the mileage at the time of such future transfer and to sign and date such disclosure.<<<; A copy of the Act is enclosed for your reference. We are aware that the titling and disclosure provision of the new Ac will require changes in many state motor vehicle titling laws and title forms. For that reason, the Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to provide assistance to any State in revising its laws to meet the new Federal criteria. It is our desire to cooperate with the states to the maximum extent possible, to assure a smooth and timely transition to the new Act.; NHTSA intends to conduct a rulemaking proceeding to implement the ne Act and resolve technical issues. Because that process will take several months, we recommended to the States through the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators that they may wish to defer changes to their vehicle title forms and titling procedures until the rulemaking has been completed. In that way, they will be in a better position to assure full compliance with the new Act and implementing regulations.; We have been advised by the Washington Attorney General's Office however, that the State law which local prosecutors currently enforce is a relatively weak statute and that strong State odometer laws are needed as expeditiously as possible. Therefore, in an effort to assist the State in combatting odometer fraud, I offer the following comments to point out inconsistencies between portions of the proposed State legislation and the new Federal law.; Section 3 of the proposed legislation concerns the issuance of odomete disclosure statements by owners, lessees and lessors. While Section 3 does not apply to vehicles leased for a period of less than six months, Section 2(e) of the Truth in Mileage Act of 1986 defines a leased motor vehicles as 'any motor vehicle which is leased to a person for a term of at least 4 months by a lessor who has leased 5 or more motor vehicles in the past 12 months.' Furthermore, under Section 2(e) of the Truth in Mileage Act of 1986, lessors are required to provide lessees written notice regarding mileage disclosure requirements and penalties for failure to comply with them. The proposed legislation includes no analogous provision.; In addition to the above comments that pertain to the new Federal law I also offer the following comments regarding differences between the proposed State law and the Federal law and regulations now in effect.; Section 7 of the proposed legislation states as follows: >>>(1) The department shall adopt an odometer disclosure statement tha complies with the federal motor vehicle information and cost savings act of 1972, P.L. No. 12-513, as amended.<<<; However, the minimum requirements contained in Section 7 of th proposed legislation vary from the requirements of the regulation promulgated under the statute. Federal regulation, 49 C.F.R. S 580.4(a)(3), requires the disclosure of the transferor's current address. In addition, 49 C.F.R. S580.4(b) requires that the odometer disclosure statement refer to the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act and shall state that incorrect information may result in civil liability and civil or criminal penalties. (Reference to State law is acceptable in lieu of a reference to Federal law.) Furthermore, 49 C.F.R. S580.4(e) states that 'The transferee shall acknowledge receipt of the disclosure statement by signing it.' Neither the transferor's current address nor a penalty notice and signature are required by the proposed legislation.; Section 7(k) of the proposed legislation requires the disclosure o both miles and kilometers when the odometer is 'altered to reflect miles instead of 'kilometers.' This Agency has not required any similar type of disclosure. We have determined that 15 U.S.C. S1987 could be relied upon to lawfully replace odometers which register kilometers travelled with those that register miles travelled. (To convert the odometer reading from kilometers to miles, multiple (sic) the kilometer reading by .62.) It is NHTSA's position that transferors who convert the odometers from kilometers to miles should check the first box of the first set of certifications which reads:; >>>I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge the odomete reading as stated above reflects the actual mileage of the vehicle described below.<<<; Furthermore, these transferors should check the second box in th second set of certifications which reads:; >>>I hereby certify that the odometer was altered for repair o replacement purposes while in my possession, and that the mileage registered on the repaired or replacement odometer was identical to that before such service.<<<; With regard to Section 4 and the question you raised in your letter, understand that the Section has been amended so that the dealer's disclosure will be included on the assignment and title.; I hope these comments assist you in your efforts to ensure th coordination of Federal and State odometer laws so that no undue burden is placed upon your members.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5041

"Dear Ms. McFadden: This responds to your June 23, 1992 lette requesting information on Federal regulations concerning safety belts and seating in vehicles manufactured by your company. These vehicles are the 'Mini Trolley,' the 'Road Train,' and the 'Trolley Tram.' You indicated that these vehicles can be used on the highway and are motorized, licensed vehicles. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. Our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., Safety Act), to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. NHTSA's safety standards specify different requirements for different types of motor vehicles. Therefore, in order to answer your specific questions, it is necessary to determine how each of your vehicles is classified under our regulations. NHTSA defines a 'bus' as 'a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons.' Your literature indicates that the 'Mini Trolley' has a passenger capacity of 18, and that the power unit of the 'Trolley Tram' has a passenger capacity of 22. Therefore, both of these vehicles would be considered a 'bus' for the purpose of Federal regulations. NHTSA defines a 'truck' as 'a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment.' The power unit of the 'Road Train' has seating capacity for only one passenger, and the primary use appears to be to draw the coaches. Therefore, it appears that this vehicle is a 'truck' for the purpose of Federal regulations. NHTSA defines a 'trailer' as 'a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle.' The coaches for the 'Road Train' and the 'Trolley Tram' would be considered trailers for the purpose of Federal regulations. Your specific questions and the answers to each follow. You asked us to answer these questions for vehicles manufactured both before and after September 1, 1991. 1. Our small unit has a GVW of 12,300, we understand that we need seat belts for the driver only, this small unit is an eighteen passenger. Our largest is a thirty-two passenger unit with a GVW of 17,000 lbs. The safety belt installation requirements are set forth in Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. This standard specifies requirements based on vehicle type and seating position within the vehicle. Different requirements also apply depending on the GVWR of the vehicle. The discussion which follows is limited to vehicles with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds. As explained below, buses such as the 'Mini Trolley' and the power unit of the 'Trolley Tram' are required to have, at a minimum, a lap belt at the driver's position, trucks such as the power unit of the 'Road Train' are required to have, at a minimum, a lap belt at every designated seating position, and trailers such as the coaches for the 'Road Train' and the 'Trolley Tram' are not required to have any type of safety belt at any seating position. The requirements for buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds are contained in S4.4 of Standard No. 208. Section S4.4.1 gives vehicle manufacturers a choice of two options for providing occupant crash protection in buses manufactured on or after January 1, 1972 and before September 1, 1990. Option 1, set forth in S4.4.1.1, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide an automatic protection system at the driver's seating position that meets the frontal and lateral crash protection and rollover requirements. Option 2, set forth in S4.4.1.2 requires vehicle manufacturers to install a lap or lap/shoulder belt at the driver's seating position. Buses manufactured on or after September 1, 1990 are allowed the same two options, however, S4.4.2.2 specifies that, if a manufacturer chooses to comply with Option 2, the lap belt or pelvic portion of the lap/shoulder belt must have either an emergency locking retractor (ELR) or an automatic locking retractor (ALR). The requirements for trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more are contained in section S4.3 of Standard No. 208. Section 4.3.1 gives vehicle manufacturers a choice of two options for providing occupant crash protection in trucks manufactured on or after January 1, 1972 and before September 1, 1990. Option 1, set forth in S4.3.1.1, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide an automatic protection system at all seating positions that meets the frontal and lateral crash protection and rollover requirements. Option 2, set forth in S4.3.1.2 requires vehicle manufacturers to install lap or lap/shoulder belts at every seating position. Trucks manufactured on or after September 1, 1990 are allowed the same two options, however, S4.3.2 specifies that, if a manufacturer chooses to comply with Option 2, the lap belt or pelvic portion of a lap/shoulder belt must have either an ELR or an ALR. Standard No. 208 does not apply to trailers. Therefore, the coaches for the 'Road Train' and the 'Trolley Tram' are not required to have safety belts. 2. As you can see on our Tram specs we do have oak seats, is there a ruling on this at all. The seating requirements are contained in Standard No. 207, Seating Systems. This standard includes strength requirements for all 'occupant seats' in passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks, and for the driver's seats in buses, except that the requirements do not apply to side- facing seats. Therefore, the driver's seat in the 'Mini Trolley' and the power unit of the 'Trolley Tram,' and all 'occupant seats' in the power unit of the 'Road Train' must meet the requirements of Standard No. 207. The standard does not specify that seats must be made of a particular material, therefore, oak seats are permitted if they comply with the standard. As with Standard No. 208, Standard No. 207 does not apply to trailers. Therefore, the seats in the coaches for the 'Road Train' and the 'Trolley Tram' are not subject to the requirements of Standard No. 207. We have one seat on some of our vehicles that we refer to as a jump seat it is located in front of the entrance door, this seats two people and faces the driver. Would the same ruling apply to this seat as for the other passenger seats. As stated above, Standard No. 207 applies only to the driver's seat in buses such as the 'Mini Trolley' or the power unit of the 'Trolley Tram.' If the jump seat is in the power unit of the 'Road Train,' and if it is not a side- facing seat, it must meet the requirements of Standard No. 207 if it is an 'occupant seat' as defined in that standard. Section S3 of Standard No. 207 defines an 'occupant seat' as 'a seat that provides at least one designated seating position.' A 'designated seating position' is defined at 49 CFR 571.3 as any plain view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats. Your letter does not contain enough information to determine whether your seat would be considered an auxiliary seating position. If it is, it is not subject to Standard No. 207. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";