ID: 1985-03.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/24/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Richard H. Lucki -- Peugeot, U. S. Technical Research Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Richard H. Lucki U.S. Factory Representative PEUGEOT U.S. Technical Research Company 33 Garland Way Lyndhurst, New Jersey 07071

This responds to your letter of March 7, 1985, concerning Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. I regret the delay in our response. You noted that sections S4.1.2.71(c)(2) and S4.1.2.2(d) of the standard require a seat belt warning system that conforms to S7.3 of the standard to be installed at each front outboard seating position of automatic restraint-equipped cars that have manual belts also at those positions. You pointed out that S7.3, however, only sets requirements for a warning system for the driver's seating position. You asked whether the requirements of S4.1.2.1(c)(2) and S4.1.2.2(d) can be met by providing a warning system conforming to S7.3 at only the driver's seating position. The answer is that those requirements can be met by a warning system for the driver only.

In December 1974 (39 FR 42692), the agency amended Standard No. 208 to establish new safety belt warning system requirements for vehicles manufactured after February 24, 1975. As discussed in the preamble, the agency decided against requiring a warning system at both the driver's seating position and the right front passenger's position. Instead, the agency adopted a requirement in S7.3(a) for a warning system at only the driver's seating position. (In July 1977 (42 FR 34299), the agency renumbered S7.3(a) to become the current S7.3).

In July 1976 (41 FR 29715), the agency proposed language concerning the safety belt warning system in automatic restraint-equipped cars. The proposed language was subsequently adopted, an July 5, 1977 (49 FR 34299), in S4.1.2.1(c)(2) of the standard. The agency explained in the preamble of the July 1976 notice that the proposed safety belt warning system was to parallel the existing requirements for passenger cars. Thus, the intent was to require a warning system for only the driver's position. Requiring a warning system for the driver's position only is also consistent with the separate warning system requirement set in S4.5.3.3(b) for automatic belts. S4.5.3.3(b) requires a warning system only for the driver's position.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

March 7, 1985

RE: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208 - Request for Interpretation

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Paragraphs 4.1.2.1(c)(2) and 4.1.2.2(d) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208 requires a seat belt warning system which conforms to paragraph 7.3 at each front outboard seating position.

Paragraph 7.3 requires that a seat belt assembly provided at the driver's seating position shall be equipped with a warning system and conditions activation of the audible signal to use of the driver's belt.

We request confirmation that the requirements of S.4.1.2.1(c)(2) and S.4.1.2.2(d) are met by providing a warning system conforming to S.7.3 at the driver's seating position only.

Thank you.

Very truly yours, Richard H. Lucki U.S. Factory Representative PEUGEOT

USTR/RHL/jg/070

ID: 22133deddo

Mr. Daniel G. Deddo
Child-Seat Safety Products Co.
3600 Lime Street, Room 118
Riverside, CA 92501-2972





Dear Mr. Deddo:

This is in response to your letter asking for this agency's comments on your new product, the Car Seat Grabber and Child-Seat Safety Anchors. Specifically, you ask whether your product complies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages.

By way of background, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, Motor Vehicle Safety, authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment or pass on the compliance of a vehicle or item of equipment outside the context of an actual enforcement proceeding. Instead, our statute 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 set forth in your letter.

You have developed a type of anchorage system for child restraints. The system is designed to be retrofitted to vehicles already on the road (as opposed to being installed in new vehicles by the vehicle's manufacturer or by an alterer). The anchorage system consists of three anchor points, each of which you call a "grabber." The "grabbers" consist of an O-ring type component attached to one end of a length of belt webbing. The other end of the webbing is bolted to the vehicle structure. Your sales brochure has the following description:

1. Top grabber installed at back lid of rear seat or on floor in SUV's [sport utility vehicles] or minivans, used to fasten upper child-seat tether strap.

2. Bottom grabbers ... are installed at the junction of the seat and back, to anchor child-seats and booster seats.

3. Bottom grabbers are attached to safety tested webbing and bracket, bolted to the car body pan with reinforced body washer....

In addition, you would bolt a tether strap to child restraints to attach to the "top grabber." You also provide a "nylon tether strap with hooks" that anchors to the lower "grabbers" on the vehicle seat. The nylon strap would be routed through the belt path molded into child restraints.

On March 5, 1999, NHTSA issued a safety standard for child restraint anchorage systems, Standard No. 225 (49 CFR '571.225). This standard requires all new passenger vehicles to have child restraint anchorage systems meeting specified strength, configuration, marking, and other requirements. A child restraint anchorage system consists of two lower anchorages and a tether anchorage. Passenger vehicles began phasing-in the lower anchorages in September 2000, and the tether anchorage in September 1999. Because it is a "vehicle" standard, Standard No. 225 applies to new motor vehicles and not to an "aftermarket" child restraint anchorage system, such as yours, that is sold for installation on used vehicles.

Nonetheless, we believe that the requirements of Standard No. 225 are necessary to ensure that child restraint anchorage systems provide at least a minimum level of safety. Moreover, anchorage systems with features different from those required by Standard No. 225 could lead to consumer confusion, and therefore have an adverse effect on motor vehicle safety. Therefore, although the standard does not apply to aftermarket systems, we urge you to assess whether your system is consistent with Standard No. 225's requirements, and to make appropriate changes.

While Standard No. 225 does not apply to your product, under NHTSA's enabling statute we consider your product to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment are responsible under our statute to ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects (49 U.S.C. ''30118-30221). In the event that you or we determine that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. For example, if your child restraint anchorage system performs poorly in restraining a child restraint, we may determine that a safety-related defect exists, in which case we could require you to remedy the problem free of charge.

You should also be aware that our statute prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable FMVSS (49 U.S.C. '30122). If the installation of your product in a motor vehicle results in the vehicle no longer complying with any applicable FMVSS, then the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business that installed your product would have violated the make inoperative provision. The law permits NHTSA to impose a civil penalty of up to $5,000 for each violation of the make inoperative provision. Similarly, if the modification of child restraints (by bolting on tether straps) results in the restraints no longer meeting our safety standard for child restraints (Standard No. 213), any party listed in '30122 modifying the restraint would be subject to substantial civil penalties.

It is impossible for us to determine from the material you submitted whether your system would perform well in a crash. However, we would like to take this opportunity to raise the following issues about your design.

Strength and Durability

We do not know whether your system would be able to securely contain a child restraint system in a crash. It appears that the grabbers are simply bolted to the car body pan with washers, with little or no reinforcement of the vehicle structure. Without reinforcement, the vehicle seat and/or structure may not be able to withstand the crash forces imposed on them. Further, the webbing of the bottom grabbers are routed vertically from the vehicle floor pan through the vehicle seat "bight" (the intersection of the seat cushion and the seat back), then lie along the top of the vehicle cushion where they attach to the child restraint. In a frontal crash, the forward motion of the child restraint could cause the bottom grabbers to straighten in the forward direction, which could displace the bottom seat cushion and result in excessive forward translation of the child restraint and excessive excursion of a child occupant's head and chest. In addition, the bottom grabbers are positioned several inches forward of the seat bight. Forward-mounted anchors can allow excessive forward displacement of a child restraint in a frontal collision, especially if the child restraint is not secured at the top tether anchor, which can increase the likelihood of head impacts with structures forward of the child. We strongly urge you to fully assess whether your anchorage system will adequately retain a child restraint and child in a crash, particularly since parents and caregivers might use the Grabber system in lieu of the vehicle's belts.

You specifically asked about Standard Nos. 209 and 210. These standards do not apply to your product. Standard No. 209 applies to straps, webbing or similar devices designed to secure a person in a motor vehicle in order to mitigate the results of any accident. However, we recommend that your product meet the standard's specifications, since they increase the likelihood that straps, webbing and buckles perform satisfactorily throughout the life of a vehicle. Standard No. 210 applies to seat belt anchorages on new motor vehicles.

Drilling Holes in Child Restraints

In your letter, you ask whether you are violating any Federal motor vehicle safety standards by drilling holes in child restraints to attach the top anchors of your product. If by drilling holes a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business affects a child restraint system such that it can no longer meet all of the requirements of Standard No. 213, a violation of the make inoperative provision, discussed above, would result. In addition, the equipment you provide and the installation of it on the child restraint must not result in safety-related defects.

Consumer Information

I note that in your sales brochure advertising the Car Seat Grabber and Child-Seat Safety Anchors you state that your product is "in conformity with NHTSA & FMSS CR 49, 571 and 596, New Federal Motor Standards." Since no Federal motor vehicle safety standard applies to your product, you cannot claim--in fact, you are prohibited from claiming--that your product complies with Federal standards. Thus, you must remove this statement and any similar statements from any materials advertising the Car Seat Grabber and Child-Seat Safety Anchors.

The brochure also states on its front cover: "A recent new ruling by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration requires that child-seats and booster seats in all passenger vehicles must be restrained with the [sic] new 3-point safety anchors when traveling...." This statement is not correct. NHTSA regulates the manufacture and sale of vehicles and equipment, but not the use of safety systems. Pursuant to the phase-in in Standard No. 225, we are requiring new passenger vehicles to have a specific, universal child restraint anchorage system, one different from yours. Your statement, implying that NHTSA requires the use of your system, is therefore erroneous and misleading. Furthermore, Standard No. 213 excludes belt-positioning booster seats from the requirement to have components that fasten to the child restraint anchorage system. For all these reasons, your statement need to be corrected.

Front Seat Installation

You note in your letter that you intend to install your anchorage system in the front seat of vehicles, "primarily in pickup trucks." We have strong concerns about installing child restraint anchorage systems at seating positions where an air bag is present, due to the hazards associated with deploying air bags, especially for infants in a rear-facing child restraint. The presence of a child restraint anchorage system at the front seating position could mistakenly imply to consumers that the seating position is suitable for a child restraint. For this reason, Standard No. 225 prohibits installation of a child restraint anchorage system at a seating position with an air bag in new vehicles. We urge you to recommend that parents put children in the rear seat, even in vehicles without an air bag. If a rear seat is unavailable, as in a pickup truck, the owner should consider installing an air bag on-off switch. Information about the switches can be obtained from our website at www.nhtsa.dot.gov

We believe that the message that children belong in the rear seat cannot be overemphasized, especially for infants in rear-facing child seats.

State Laws and Private Liability

Individual States are responsible for regulating the use of motor vehicles, and a State may have its own requirements with regard to the type of child restraint anchorage systems a vehicle must have to be registered or operated in that State. Moreover, compliance with our regulations and standards does not insulate you from civil liability. You might wish to consult with a private attorney about such civil liability issues.

I have enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers for your information. If you have any further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita in my office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:213#225
d.8/22/01

ID: 003453rbm--June 6

Stephan J. Speth, Director
Vehicle Compliance & Safety Affairs
DaimlerChrysler Corporation
800 Chrysler Drive CIMS 482-00-91
Auburn Hills, MI 48326-2757

Dear Mr. Speth:

This responds to your recent correspondence regarding the use of the Cosco Dream Ride car bed in conducting tests for the advanced air bag requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection (FMVSS No. 208). S19 of FMVSS No. 208 requires that a manufacturer certifying compliance with the advanced air bag requirements for infants through automatic suppression certify that the passenger air bag will suppress when tested with any child restraint listed in Subparts A, B and C of Appendix A to the standard. The Cosco car bed is currently the only restraint listed in Subpart A of the appendix. You state in your letter that the car bed does not fit in the front passenger seat of one of your vehicles. You also state that this problem is likely to be encountered with other models of vehicles. Accordingly, you have requested an interpretation stating that compliance with S19 is not required for a child seat that cannot reasonably be installed at any seat track position without contacting the interior of the vehicle. We have determined that manufacturer certification is not required with respect to any child restraint that cannot be placed in the vehicle at any seating position without significant contact with the vehicle interior as described below.

On May 12, 2000, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) published a final rule requiring advanced air bags in all passenger cars, multi-purpose passenger vehicles, buses and light trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 8,500 lb or less starting September 1, 2003 (65 FR 30680). Several of the issues raised in your letter were discussed, either directly, or by analogy, in the preamble of that final rule.

In your letter, you explain that the Cosco car bed cannot be installed in a manner that allows for the proper placement of the car bed. In the full forward and full rearward seat track positions, the door of the vehicle cannot be closed. In the mid-track position, the door can be closed, but only by pushing the interior edge of the car bed against the

gear shift, such that you believe a driver would be unable to operate the vehicle. Even at this position, you note that the car bed must be placed at an angle that is inconsistent with the restraint manufacturer's installation instructions. Additionally, because of the placement of the car bed against the gear shift, the occupant classification system detects an empty seat and the telltale indicator does not illuminate. Because the occupant classification system defaults to air bag suppression if the system reads the seat as empty, the air bag would suppress if the car bed were placed in the seat. You go on to state that the Cosco car bed is no longer in production and that no other car beds are currently distributed for sale in the U.S. market. [1]

The test procedures for S19 are contained in S20 of the standard. Under that provision, if a child restraint contacts the vehicle interior, the vehicle seat is moved rearward until there is no contact. At that point, the vehicle manufacturer must certify compliance with the standard. There is no corollary language in S22 or S24, which provide the test procedures for the three-year-old and six-year-old compliance options.

The discussion in the preamble related to the "no contact" language of S20.1.2 is limited to contact with a rear facing child restraint and the vehicle dashboard. (See discussion at 65 FR 30711, 30724.) The language was included because we had found in our testing that when some convertible child restraints were tested in their rear facing position with the vehicle seat in a full forward position, the child restraint was either severely tilted or entirely lifted off the seat of some vehicles. We stated that we did not believe parents or caregivers were likely to transport an infant in such a position. Rather, it was our opinion that the vehicle seat would be moved back to accommodate the child restraint. The agency did not anticipate a situation where the width of the child restraint would prevent placement of the restraint without contacting the vehicle interior. Likewise, we did not contemplate a situation where no seat track position could be found that would allow the restraint to be placed in the vehicle without contacting the vehicle interior.

We will not conduct compliance testing for, and manufacturers will not be required to certify compliance with, S19 when the child restraint's width results in so significant a level of contact with the vehicle interior that one would not reasonably expect a parent or caregiver to place the restraint in the front seat. We will consider the following factors in determining whether to do so: first, whether the placement of the restraint in the seat prevents one from closing the door of the vehicle; second, whether the placement of the restraint prevents the driver from operating the vehicle in a reasonable manner, e.g., because of interference between the restraint and either the gear shift or parking brake; and third, whether the restraint is rotated so that it deviates more than 30 degrees from a longitudinal vertical plane. In deciding to drop a proposed test condition in which the restraint was placed on the seat at a 45-degree angle with that plane, we noted that it was unreasonable to assume that parents would actually place a restraint so markedly out of position. (See discussion at 65 FR 30710-11.)

Based on the information provided in your letter, it appears that at least two of these factors may be applicable. The inability to close the car door in the full forward and full rearward seat track positions would obviously preclude the use of the car bed in those positions. Likewise, depending on the amount of interference, the gear shift interference could prevent a driver from operating the vehicle with the car bed in the mid-track position. We note that if other seat positions permit reasonable placement of the child restraint, then compliance testing would be performed at these seat positions.

At this time, we are not deciding that limited contact between a child restraint in Appendix A and the vehicle interior, other than contact between a rear facing child restraint and the dashboard or console, would relieve a vehicle manufacturer from its certification responsibilities with respect to the advanced air bag requirements. Parents or caregivers may use a restraint in the front seat even though there is some contact with the vehicle interior. In those instances, it is appropriate to require manufacturers to certify compliance with the standard using that restraint, and we intend to conduct compliance testing even though there may be some degree of contact.

I hope this letter addresses your concerns. Please feel free to contact Rebecca MacPherson of my staff at (202) 366-2992 should you have any additional questions.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:208
d.6/9/03





---

[1] Cosco has informed NHTSA that the Dream Ride car bed has not been discontinued. Rather, it is manufactured only when someone places an order for it.

ID: nht90-1.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/12/90

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: SCOTT K. HILER -- MANAGER, R & D LAB C. E. WHITE CO.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 11/27/89 FROM SCOTT K. HILER -- CE WHITE COMPANY TO NHTSA; OCC 4212

TEXT: Dear Mr. Hiler:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages (49 CFR @571.210). Specifically, you asked if the strength test set forth in that standard requires simultaneous testing of all the safety belt an chorages for a passenger seat in school buses wiht a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds orless, when those anchorages are installed on the seat frame, or whether those anchorages can be tested individually. The answer is that such ancho rages are tested individually under the current provisions of the strength test in Standard No. 210.

Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.222) establishes the occupant protection requirements for passenger seating positions in school buses. Section S5(b) of Standard No. 222 provides that school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less shall meet the requirements of Standard No. 210, among other standards. Section S4.2 of Standard No. 210 sets forth the strength test for anchorages. Section S4.2.4 reads as follows: "Except for common seat belt anchorages for forward-facing and rearward-facing seats, floor-mounted seat belt anchorages for adjacent designated seating positions shall be tested by simultaneously loading the seat belt assemblies attached to those anchorages."

Note that the only anchorages subject to a simultaneous testing requirement are floor-mounted anchorages. The anchorages described in your letter and shown in the photographs enclosed with that letter are mounted on the seat frame. Therefore, those anch orages would not be tested simultaneously to determine compliance with Standard No. 210.

I should aslo point out that NHTSA has proposed to amend section S4.2.4 of Standard No. 210 so that all seat and floor-mounted anchorages common to one seat would be tested simultaneously during the strength test. I have enclosed a copy of that proposal for your information. The interpretation in this letter may no longer be correct after the effective date of any final rule adopting that proposal.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: aiam2184

On January 23, 1976, I received a telephone call from Mr. Walt Robbin (750-2600) concerning the interpretation letter mailed from this office to him an January 20, 1976. (The subject of that letter was the application of Standard No. 109's labeling requirements to a 'Radial, Bias Ply Tire'.) Mr. Robbins asked three questions:; 1) Were the four labeling examples set out in the letter intended to b restrictive or merely a model, with respect to the cord materials used in the tires (e.g. would a similar label that specified '3 PLIES 2 POLYESTER BIAS PLIES 1 POLYESTER RADIAL PLY' instead of an aramid radial ply also be permissible)? I explained that, in that respect, the examples were merely a model, so that his suggested alternative would be permissible.; 2) When would the rule that was discussed in the letter be issued? declined to give a prediction, explaining generally the uncertainties in the rulemaking process.; 3) What was the real reason for inclusion of the suggestion that h consult the FTC concerning advertising of the tires in question? I explained that he could take the sentence on its face and that the NHTSA was not, in the letter, taking any position on the use of the word 'radial' in the advertising of such tires.; Mark I. Schwimmer

ID: aiam4423

"Dear Mr. Dix: This responds to your letter requesting informatio concerning 'after market upfittings'. You indicate that you intend to bid on Federal, State or County motor vehicle solicitations and it appears that a number of these solicitations contain specifications that would require 'after market upfittings'. You asked how our regulations would affect those 'after market upfittings'. As you may know, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) prohibits the sale or introduction into interstate commerce of any new vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that does not conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Safety Act authorizes NHTSA to issue these safety standards. NHTSA does not have authority to approve, endorse, or offer assurances of compliance to a manufacturer's motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Rather, the Safety Act established a 'self-certification' process, in which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. It is not clear from your letter whether 'after market upfittings' means that you will be altering motor vehicles while they are still new, i.e., before they have been sold to a consumer for the first time or that you will be making modifications to used vehicles, i.e., ones that have been purchased already. The requirements applicable to the 'after market upfittings' vary, depending on whether the alteration is performed before or after the vehicle has been sold to a consumer for the first time. I will discuss first the requirements that would apply if you modify vehicles that are new. As modified, the vehicles must continue to comply with all applicable standards, since section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits the sale of any vehicle that does not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Further, the agency's certification requirements in Part 567 of the Code of Federal Regulations applies to any person who changes previously certified vehicles by means other than the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components or minor finishing operations, or in such a manner that the weight ratings assigned to the vehicle are no longer valid. Such a person is considered an 'alterer' for purposes of Part 567 (copy enclosed). The person performing the modifications set forth in your letter (installing a bench seat or adding auxiliary springs) would be considered an alterer, because seats and springs are not readily attachable components. In this situation, 49 CFR 567.7 requires that: (1) The alterer supplement the existing manufacturer certification label by affixing an additional label stating that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards as well as stating the firm or individual name of the alterer and the month and the year in which the alterations were completed (see /567.7(a)), (2) The modified values for the vehicle be provided as specified in //567.4(g)(3) and (5), if the gross vehicle weight ratings or any of the gross axle weight ratings of the vehicle as altered are different from those shown on the original certification label (see /567.7(b)), and (3) The type classification be provided, if the vehicle as altered has a different type of classification from that shown on the original certification. In addition to these certification requirements, an alterer is considered a 'manufacturer' for the purposes of notification and recall for defects or noncompliance under the Safety Act and is subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Reports. With respect to your first point, i.e., that you believe you should '(o)btain from the company doing the work a certification that the after market upfitting meets National Highway Safety Standards,' the alterer is required to certify that the altered new vehicle complies with all applicable Federal safety standards. I am not sure that I understand your second point, i.e., that if a bench seat is installed in a cargo van, the van must have a side door that can be opened from the inside. If you are speaking of an obligation to make some modification to an existing side door, the door would be governed by Standard No. 206, Door locks and door retention system (See 49 CFR 571.206). S4 of Standard 206 provides that the standard's requirements apply to 'any side door leading directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations' and specifies different strength and lock requirements for different types of doors. The addition of a bench seat to what was formerly the cargo compartment would convert that compartment into one subject to S4. The safety standard does not require that the inside rear door handles be operative. If your second point refers to an obligation to install a side door because you install a bench seat, that is not correct. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not impose an obligation that there be a side door in a van. With all of the preceding statements, however, you should note that section 108(c) of the Safety Act provides that compliance with our standards does not exempt any person from any liability under common law. Accordingly, you may wish to consult with a private attorney regarding any product liability concerns you may have about the operability of the door. Your third point is that you believe that you must place 'a decal, label, or some form of paperwork in the vehicle indicating the results of the upfitting.' If the 'after market upfittings' to which you refer are made to a new vehicle, /567.7 requires the alterer to permanently affix to the vehicle a label setting forth the information specified in that section. Having discussed the requirements applicable to new vehicles, I now turn to discussing those applicable to used vehicles. If the 'after market upfittings' are modifications to used vehicles (in this case, vehicles sold and delivered to a public authority), section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act applies. This section prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any equipment or element of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. Thus, neither your dealership nor any company that is a repair business or manufacturer can alter legally any vehicle that complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards when you receive it (as certified on the motor vehicle by the original manufacturer), in such a way that the vehicle no longer complies with the applicable safety standards. If the vehicles in question are used vehicles at the time of their modification, the company performing the modifications is not required to provide a separate certification, as discussed in your points 1 and 3. Since you, as the dealer, may be held responsible under section 108(a)(2)(A) for any rendering inoperative by a company acting as your agent, you may wish to get written assurances from the modifier that it has made the modifications in a manner which will not take the vehicle out of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, that matter is left for your dealership and the modifier to resolve. As an aid to helping you determine which standards may apply to the modified vehicles, I am enclosing a publication entitled 'Federal Vehicle Safety Standards and Procedures.' This pamphlet indicates which standards apply to which vehicle types. I also have enclosed a general information sheet for new manufacturers that gives a general description of the applicable regulations, and explains how to get copies of those regulations. I hope this information proves helpful. Please contact this agency again if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures";

ID: aiam4706

"Dear Mr. Turner: This responds to your letter seeking a interpretation of the meaning of the term 'front outboard designated seating position,' for the purposes of Standards No. 202, Head Restraints (49 CFR 571.202) and No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). Specifically, you referred to a typical seating arrangement on a small bus your company manufactures. In this seating arrangement, the driver's seating position is located immediately to the rear of the left side of dashboard. There are no other seating positions in the same row as the driver's seat. Instead, a side entrance door and stepwell are to the right of the driver's seat with an unobstructed passage between the driver's seat and the entrance door. To the rear of the driver's seat, there are four rows of passenger seats on each side of the bus, separated by a center aisle that runs the length of the bus. You offered your opinion that the forwardmost passenger seating position on the right side of the bus, which is to the rear of the driver's seating position and the entrance door and stepwell, is not a front outboard seating position for the purposes of Standards No. 202 and 208. Your understanding is correct. While NHTSA has never specifically defined 'front' seating positions, the agency has used that term to refer to the driver's seating position and all other seating positions in the same transverse or lateral row as the driver's seating position. In the small bus described in your letter, the forwardmost passenger seat on the right side of the bus is not in the same transverse row as the driver's seat, it is to the rear of that row. Therefore, the forwardmost passenger seat on the right side of your bus would not be a 'front' seat for the purposes of Standards No. 202 or 208. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: 7768

Mr. C. Morris Adams
1201 Rockford Road
High Point, NC 27260

Dear Mr. Adams:

This responds to your FAX of September 24, 1992, requesting a ruling regarding the legality of lap belts at the passenger seats on school buses. As explained below, Federal law has long required lap or lap/shoulder belts to be installed at every passenger seating position on small school buses. Federal law has also long permitted, but not required, lap or lap/shoulder belts to be installed at passenger seating positions on large school buses, provided that those belts do not adversely affect the large school bus's compliance with the applicable safety standards. This is still the agency's position.

As you know, in 1977, NHTSA issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, which established minimum levels of crash protection that must be provided for occupants of all school buses. For large school buses (those with a gross vehicle weight rating [GVWR] of more than 10,000 pounds), the standard requires occupant protection through a concept called "compartmentalization" -- strong, well-padded, well-anchored, high-backed, evenly spaced seats. Small school buses (those with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less) must provide "compartmentalization" and be equipped with lap or lap/shoulder belts at all passenger seating positions. The agency believes that safety belts are necessary in addition to "compartmentalization" in small school buses because of their smaller size and weight, which are closer to that of passenger cars and light trucks.

Ever since 1977, NHTSA has indicated that Federal law permits lap or lap/shoulder belts to be installed at the passenger seating positions on large school buses as long as the vehicle would still comply with all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 222. NHTSA has no information to indicate that installation of seat belts at the passenger seating positions on a large school bus would affect the bus's compliance with any safety standard. The allegations in your FAX that using seat belts in large school buses will result in crash forces producing concentrated loading on the head, instead of being spread evenly over the upper torso as is the case without a seat belt, are nearly identical with the explanations included in a 1985 Transport Canada report on school bus safety. NHTSA carefully evaluated and considered the Canadian report and these explanations in connection with its rulemaking action considering whether to specify requirements for voluntarily installed seat belts on large school buses. 54 FR 11765; March 22, 1989. After fully considering the Canadian report, the agency stated at 54 FR 11770:

NHTSA shares commenters' concerns about any implications that safety belts negatively affect the protection provided to passengers on large school buses. However, the agency is not aware of accident data showing an injury caused or made more serious by the presence of safety belts on a school bus. Furthermore, NHTSA cannot conclude from the Canadian report's findings that belts actually degrade the benefits of compartmentalization to the extent that the supplemental restraint system renders inoperative the safety of large school buses, but the possibility exists that the occupant kinematics shown in the Canadian tests could occur.

The agency then identified some possible safety benefits that could result from seat belts in large school buses, benefits that were not considered in the Canadian tests. The agency concluded that, "Although these benefits are not significant enough to justify a Federal requirement for the installation of safety belts on all large school buses, they are enough to provide a basis upon which the agency will decline to prohibit the installation of belts on large school buses." 54 FR 11765, at 11770; March 22, 1989. I have enclosed a copy of this notice for your information.

As you can see, NHTSA has carefully considered the subject raised in your FAX and reviewed all available information in this area. After that review, the agency concluded that there was no justification for changing its longstanding position that persons that wish to do so should be permitted to install seat belts at passenger seating positions in large school buses. Your letter did not provide any data that NHTSA had not already considered. Hence, there is no basis for the agency to change its longstanding position in this area.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:222 d:10/9/92

ID: aiam5373

"Dear Mr. Anderson: This responds to your letter of May 2, 1994 requesting information on which of the recent amendments to Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (57 FR 49413, November 2, 1992, and 57 FR 57020, December 2, 1992), would apply to Type A-1 school buses. Your letter notes that Type A- 1 school buses have a capacity of 16-20 passengers and a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of less than 10,000 pounds. The recent amendments to Standard No. 217 set new requirements for the provision of emergency exits based upon the seating capacity of the school bus (S5.2), set performance requirements for emergency exit window and emergency roof exit release (S5.3), revised the extension requirements for side doors and set extension requirements for emergency roof exits (S5.4), and revised the identification requirements (S5.5). The effect of each of these amendments on Type A-1 school buses is discussed separately below. Provision of Emergency Exits (S5.2) The recent amendments listed above revised S5.2.3 to specify the number and type of exits required on school buses, including Type A-1 school buses. This section states: The area in square centimeters of the unobstructed openings for emergency exit shall collectively amount to at least 432 times the number of designated seating positions in the bus. The amount of emergency exit area credited to an emergency exit is based on the daylight opening of the exit opening. The section also specifies the type of emergency exits which must be installed to meet this requirement. All school buses, including Type A-1 school buses, are required to have either a rear emergency exit door or a side emergency exit door and a rear push-out window. These are the same exits required by Standard No. 217 before the recent amendments. After deducting the daylight opening of the front service door and the required exit(s), any remaining exit area must be provided by installing additional exits in the following order: (1) a side emergency exit door, (2) a emergency roof exit, and (3) any combination of emergency exit doors, emergency roof exits, and emergency exit windows. Please note that, while these new requirements apply to all school buses, it is unlikely that a 20 passenger school bus will require additional exits. Under the new requirements, a school bus with 21 designated seating positions (20 passengers plus the driver) is required to provide 9,072 square centimeters of exit area. A school bus with a front service door and either of the mandatory options (rear emergency exit door or side emergency exit door and rear push-out window) should easily exceed this amount. To illustrate, in the past, the agency has estimated that the average front service door has a daylight opening of 12,916 square centimeters. For school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, a rear emergency door that is the minimum size required to meet the extension requirements has a daylight opening of 6,270 square centimeters. A side emergency door that is the minimum size required to meet the extension requirements has a daylight opening of 6,954 square centimeters. A rear push- out window that is the minimum size required has a daylight opening of 5,002 square centimeters. Emergency Exit Release (S5.3) The recent amendments added performance requirements for the release mechanisms for emergency exit windows and emergency roof exits on school buses. As explained above, the recent amendments should not require either of these types of exits to be installed on Type A-1 school buses. However, if either of these types of exits are voluntarily installed on Type A-1 school buses, the release mechanisms must comply with these requirements. In the recent amendments to Standard No. 217, some of the performance requirements, including the release requirements in S5.3, apply to 'each' emergency exit. This language extends these requirements to any emergency exit door in a school bus, including voluntarily installed ones. Other requirements apply to 'required' emergency exits. (See, for example, S5.5.3(c) discussed below.) Those requirements do not apply to voluntarily installed emergency exits. Emergency Exit Extension (S5.4) The amendments of the extension requirements also apply to Type A-1 school buses. The recent amendments revised the extension requirements for side doors on school buses with a GVWR of more than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) and set extension requirements for emergency roof exits on school buses with a GVWR of more than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds). These amendments also affect school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, as the requirements specify that these vehicles are to comply with the same requirements as school buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds (except for the minimum size for rear emergency exit doors). If a Type A-1 school bus has a side emergency exit door, that exit is required to comply with the amended requirements concerning access to the exit. Under the new requirements, side emergency exit doors are required to provide an opening at least 114 centimeters high and 61 centimeters wide. In addition, an aisle 30 centimeters wide (referenced to the rear edge of the door) must be provided from the longitudinal centerline of the bus to the exit. A seat bottom is allowed within this aisle if it flips up when not in use such that it no longer is within the aisle. Finally, no portion of a seat or restraining barrier may block access to the latch. In addition, if an emergency roof exit is installed in a Type A-1 school bus, it is required to provide an opening at least 41 centimeters high and 41 centimeters wide under the new requirements. Finally, all emergency exit doors, including emergency exit doors on Type A-1 school buses, are required to have a 'positive door opening device' that, among other things, prevents the door from closing if it has been opened beyond a certain point (see, S5.4.2.1(a)(3)). Emergency Exit Identification (S5.5) Finally, the recent amendments revised the identification requirements (S5.5) for exits on all school buses, including Type A-1 school buses. As revised, each required emergency exit is required to be marked with the words 'Emergency Door' or 'Emergency Exit,' as appropriate. For emergency exit doors, the location of this marking was not changed by these amendments. For emergency window exits and emergency roof exits, location requirements were added. In addition, each required emergency exit must be outlined with retroreflective tape. Please note however, that the identification requirements do not apply to voluntarily installed emergency exits (i.e., exits in excess of those required by S5.2.3). You should be aware that there was a discrepancy concerning the size of the retroreflective tape caused by the metric conversion in the final rule. I have enclosed is a copy of a July 7, 1993 letter to Mr. Thomas D. Turner of the Blue Bird Body Company which discusses this issue. As explained in that letter, we plan to issue a correction notice of the November 2, 1992 rule that would specify a minimum size of 2.5 cm for the tape. Until the correction is issued, NHTSA will not take enforcement measures regarding tape size against a manufacturer who uses 1 inch wide retroreflective tape. To summarize and answer your specific questions, Type A-1 school buses typically would not be affected by the recent amendment requiring either emergency roof exits or emergency window exits. However, required emergency exits (including a rear emergency exit door) are required to be outlined with retroreflective tape. In addition, all exits (required and voluntary) must comply with the new performance requirements for release and extension. With respect to your receipt of an oral interpretation from agency staff, I would also like to emphasize that, to the extent there are questions concerning the meaning of any NHTSA standard or regulation, the only agency interpretations which are authoritative and which therefore can be relied upon by manufacturers are those issued in writing by the Chief Counsel. We have reminded agency staff not to make formal, or informal, oral statements that might be misinterpreted by manufacturers as official agency guidance on which they may safely rely. Please note that recent delay of the effective date of the recent amendments applies only to provision of emergency exits (S5.2) (59 FR 22997, May 4, 1994). The other amendments were effective on May 2, 1994. I also note that the May 4 notice does not state 'that it only applys (sic) to School Buses with capacity of 24 to 90 passengers.' The notice does refer to tables in a previous NPRM which listed the types of exits required under the proposal for buses with a capacity in that range. I have also enclosed a copy of the recent final rules for your use. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures";

ID: nht80-1.47

DATE: 04/09/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Renault USA

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of March 3, 1980, requesting an interpretation concerning the proper designated seating capacity for the rear seat in the Renault Le Car vehicle. You state that the rear seat of the Le Car has 48.2 inches of hip room, and ask whether the vehicle would qualify as having only two designated seating positions.

I am enclosing a copy of a letter of interpretation the agency recently issued to Toyota Motor Company regarding the designated seating capacity of the rear seats in several of its models. The rear-seat designs of these Toyota models are very similar to the Le Car, in that the presence of wheel wells results in hip room measurements below 50 inches under the strict measurement technique specified in the definition of "designated seating position" (SAE J1100a). As was pointed out in that letter, however, if occupants move their hips slightly forward of the wheel wells, which extend only a few inches out into the seat, there is over 50 inches of usable hip room in these vehicles.

Your letter states that the close proximity of the two inboard portions of the rear seat belt assemblies in the Le Car indicates that only two positions are intended by the manufacturer. The agency would give more credence to this factor if the inboard portions of the belt assemblies were on stiff, immovable cables (or similar design). With the current design, a person wishing to sit in the center position can easily move the belts out of the way, so the belts are not real impediments to use of the center position.

In answer to your ultimate question, the agency must conclude that the rear seat in the Le Car vehicle could qualify as having only two designated seating positions since the hip room is below 50 inches according to the technical measurement procedure specified in the standard. However, we think this is an extremely close case since there is over 48 inches of hip room even between the wheel wells and greater than 50 inches of hip room if the measurement is made mid-way the seat cushion. Therefore, we strongly urge Renault to modify its seat design or to add a third set of belts in this vehicle model. As noted in the letter to Toyota, if manufacturers do not voluntarily comply with the clear intent of the definition of "designated seating position", the agency may find it necessary to modify the measurement technique that is currently specified.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

RENAULT USA

ENGINEERING & PLANNING GROUP.

March 3, 1980

Ralph Hitchcock, Chief -- Crashworthiness Division, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Hitchcock:

Renault hereby requests a confirmation of its interpretation of the designated seating position definition contained in 49 CFR @ 571.3 to the effect that it would require two such seating positions in the rear seat of the Renault Le Car vehicle.

You will recall that we brought a 1980 Renault Le Car to NHTSA in December for examination by you and others of your office as well as representatives from Enforcement and Chief Counsel.

The rear seat width of this vehicle, a two-door hatchback with a folding rear seat, is 48.2-inches measured in accordance with SAE J1100(a). This 48.2-inch dimension includes the wheel wells, which protrude slightly into the seating area.

Renault's intention that the rear seat be limited to two designated seating positions is indicated, among other things, by the fact that the short inboard seat belts for the left and right seated passengers are located adjacent to one another.

Sincerely yours,

Francois Louis -- Governmental Affairs