ID: nht78-1.39

DATE: 06/16/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 24, 1978, letter asking two questions concerning Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection.

In your first question, you ask what the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) means by the phrase "seat components shall not separate at any attachment point." This phrase is found in the forward and rearward loading performance tests. You suggest that the NHTSA interpret this to mean a complete separation of a seat component from another component. The NHTSA disagrees with this suggestion.

The standard as written clearly indicates that the agency has intended that seat components remain connected at all attachment points during testing. If the agency had intended a complete separation of seating components to be the test for separation, it would have used that language in the drafting of the regulation. Therefore, the agency declines to adopt the interpretation that you suggest and will require the seat to remain attached at all attachment points during testing.

Your second suggestion concerns a possible problem in the computation of loads during rearward testing. You state that occasionally the loading bar will become buried in the upholstery material and, therefore, distort the actual seat loads. The NHTSA has not noted the phenomenon to which you refer. However, if it were to occur in compliance testing the agency would be certain to factor out any aberrations in the test results that occurred owing to this loading bar problem.

SINCERELY,

April 24, 1978

Joseph J. Levin Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Levin:

The purpose of this letter is to seek a clarifying interpretation on two issues relating to FMVSS 222.

1. S 5.1.3 (e) and S 5.1.4 (e) state that during the forward and rearward performance tests respectively that "seat components shall not separate at any attachment point."

It has been brought to my attention that this phrase is subject to extreme interpretation which we don't believe National Highway Traffic Safety Administration intended. For example, if 1 out of 100 spotwelds attaching a seatback panel to the frame failed, creating a local separation, would this be considered a non compliance per S 5.1.3 (e) or S 5.1.4 (e)?

We have not used this interpretation. The reasoning for this is that the seat component (back panel) has not separated from the frame.

This is only one example. The same problem occurs in attaching the seat riser to the main frame etc., etc.

Without a clear cut definition of "separate" it is impossible to deal with this phrase. For example, would a torn bracket at a bolt attachment point be a separation? If so, how long must the tear be?

Therefore, we believe the only workable interpretation of S 5.1.3 (e) and S 5.1.4 (e) is to define "separate" as complete separation of one seat component from another; i.e. separation of the seat foot from the riser from the main frame etc.

We solicit your concurrence with this interpretation.

2. The second item deals with S 5.1.4 Seat performance rearward and S 6.5 loading bar.

S 6.5 requires the loading bar to be 4" narrower than the seat width to insure that panel type members are secured in a manner adequate to transmit loads to main seat frame members. We agree with this philosophy.

However, in our testing and development program we have noted an intermitent problem which is directly related to the "narrow" load bar but does not affect seat performance in any way.

The problem is that occasionally the "narrow" load bar will bury itself in the upholstery, padding, and sheet metal and hang up. When this occurs, the load bar begins pulling the seat back in tension creating high apparent loads rather than sliding along the upholstery and only sensing seat back bending loads. Because these tension loads build rapidly, (and exceed 2200 pounds) this phenomenon could be misinterpreted as a seat back which is too rigid.

This phenomenon is intermitent and not always repeatable. It occurs on different seat designs and appears to be related to parameters difficult to define such as padding thickness, the hardness of the loading bar spherical ends, and the coefficient of friction of the upholstery.

One possible solution, if this should occur during compliance testing, is to use the test results from the "narrow" bar test to prove the integrity of the panel to frame attachment and use a wider bar to get true results of seat back performance.

The purpose of this discussion is to go on record as acknowledging this phenomenon and seek confirmation from National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that this would not be judged a non compliance if encountered during compliance testing.

We look forward to your early response on these issues.

W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services

ID: nht89-1.60

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/03/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: RICHARD L. STORY

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 12/01/88 FROM RICHARD L. STORY TO NHTSA 0CC 2871

TEXT: Dear Mr. Story:

This responds to your letter asking whether manufacturers are required to install rear seat lap/shoulder belts in cars originally equipped with rear seat lap belts at no additional cost to the consumer. The answer to this question is no.

The lap belts that are installed in the rear seat of your car are effective in reducing the risk of death and injury in a crash. Based on this agency's analysis of a number of crash data files, we estimate that rear seat lap belts saved about 100 lives and prevented over 1500 serious injuries in 1987 alone. These figures would have been substantially higher if more rear seat occupants used their lap belts. In fact, if everyone had worn their rear seat lap belts each time they rode, those belts would h ave saved about 660 lives and prevented more than 10,000 serious injuries in 1987 alone.

Even though lap belts have been proven to be effective in reducing the risk of death and injury in a crash, we agree that properly designed lap and shoulder belts have the potential to offer even greater crash protection than lap belts alone. For this r eason, we have proposed to require that all new passenger cars sold in the United States be equipped with rear seat lap and shoulder belts beginning in the 1990 model year. For cars made in earlier model years, we have actively sought the car manufactur ers' cooperation in providing retrofit kits to interested consumers. You indicated in your letter that Ford offers a rear seat lap and shoulder belt retrofit kit for your car, the 1988 Thunderbird.

We encourage consumers to consider having rear seat lap and shoulder belts fitted into their cars when manufacturers have made a retrofit kit available for the car, because of the additional crash protection afforded to rear seat passengers. However, NH TSA has no authority to require manufacturers to provide these retrofit kits and installation free of charge to the consumer. Thus, the individual consumer who desires the added protection of lap and shoulder belts in the rear seat will have to pay for that additional protection.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please let me know.

Sincerely,

ID: aiam4487

"Dear Mr. Mitchell: This is a response to your letter asking whether i is permissible to install only two seat belts on a 39-inch bench-seat in a school bus with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less (small school bus). I apologize for the delay in this response. The answer is no. You stated that Thomas Built Buses (Thomas) would like to accommodate certain customers who wish to have two designated seating positions on each 39-inch bench-seat installed in a small school bus 'for passenger comfort reasons.' Your letter sets forth a suggested rationale as to why Thomas believes such a configuration would be permissible in small school buses. First, you argued that a May 11, 1978 interpretation of Standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, states that Federal motor vehicle safety regulations do not prohibit having only two-passenger seating positions on a 39-inch bench-seat in a bus designed for adult transportation. In these circumstances, we said, a manufacturer has some discretion to decide the number of designated seating positions in its vehicles, but must make a good faith determination of the vehicle's passenger capacity to discourage vehicle overloading. You reason that because the term 'designated seating position' is in the Definitions section of the Federal safety standards (49 CFR 571.3), the definition applies to all safety standards. You apparently conclude that our earlier interpretation of Standard 217 and the definition of 'designated seating position' in 571.3 permit a manufacturer to make a good faith determination respecting the number of seating positions on a school bus. Based on this conclusion, you posited two situations in which this reasoning might be applied. Situation 1 was described as follows in your letter: Thomas Built Buses interprets (the May, 1978, interpretation) to be applicable for a school bus sold to carry only high school students. We consider the use of two seat belts on a 39 inch seat to be reasonable and justified due to passenger size making three passengers on one 39' seat impossible. We would honor a purchaser's request to equip these 39' seats with two belts each. Is this interpretation correct? This interpretation is incorrect for several reasons. First, the earlier interpretation did not apply to school buses, by its own terms, it is clearly limited to buses other than school buses. Second, there is not a separate set of standards that specify differing requirements for school buses designed to carry high school students. In determining whether school bus standards apply to a vehicle designed to carry 11 or more persons, the proper inquiry is whether the bus is sold to carry 'primary, preprimary, or secondary school students' to or from school or school-related events. Any vehicle that meets this definition of the term 'school bus' must comply with all applicable school bus standards, regardless of whether it is designed to carry small children to kindergarten or teenagers to high school. Third, the definition of 'designated seating position' and our interpretations of that term, are not relevant in determining whether a school bus bench-seat in a small school bus complies with the requirements of Standard 222. Paragraph S4.1 of Standard 222 sets out a specific procedure for calculating the number of seating positions in a bench seat. That paragraph explains that the number of seating positions on a bench seat in school buses is calculated by (1) measuring the width of the bench seat in inches, (2) dividing by 15, and (3) rounding to the nearest whole number. The value which results from this calculation (expressed by the term 'W') is the basis for determining whether the seat complies with the requirements of Standard 222. For a 39-inch bench-seat, the procedure in S4.1 shows that this seat has three seating positions. Paragraph S5(b) of Standard 222 therefore requires that this bench-seat have three seat belt assemblies installed. Therefore, if your company were to install only two seat belt assemblies on a 39-inch wide bench-seat in a small school bus, you could not certify that the vehicle complies with Standard 222. For these same reasons, your interpretation set forth in your 'Situation 2' is also incorrect. Even if a customer specifically asks that only two seat belt assemblies be installed on 39-inch bench seats, Standard 222 requires your company to equip these seats with three seat belt assemblies. I hope you find this information helpful. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam5128

"Dear Mr. Vega: This responds to your letter addressed to forme Secretary Card. Your letter expresses concern that vans used by the Florida State Prison to transport prisoners do not have seat belts. According to your letter and copies of other correspondence you enclosed, wood and metal benches are located along the sides of the rear area of the vans, and there are no side windows in that area. You state that you believe that this is a violation of Florida and Federal safety belt laws. Your letter has been referred to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for response because it contains questions concerning laws and regulations administered by this agency. Let me begin by making clear that I have no special knowledge or expertise with respect to Florida law. My answer will address only the requirements of the laws and regulations administered by this agency. Some background information may be helpful. NHTSA is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., Safety Act) to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, (49 CFR 571.208) which, among other things, requires safety belts to be installed at certain seating positions in motor vehicles. However, different requirements apply depending on the vehicle type, seating position within the vehicle, and the GVWR of the vehicle. Accordingly, I cannot identify the specific requirements for the vans you are concerned about without knowing the vehicles' date of manufacture, seating capacity, and gross vehicle weight rating. The Safety Act provides that no person shall manufacture, import, or sell any new vehicle unless it complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including the seat belt installation requirements in Standard No. 208. See 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A). The requirement that a vehicle comply with all applicable safety standards applies only until the vehicle's first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. See 15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1). After such first purchase, the only provision in Federal law that affects modifications that can be made to the vehicle is set forth in 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A). That section provides that: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Please note that this prohibition applies only to the commercial entities identified in the section, not to individual vehicle owners. Vehicle owners may alter their own vehicles and operate them on the highways without violating Federal law, even if the owner's modifications cause the vehicle to no longer comply with the seat belt installation requirements of Standard No. 208. Thus, if a State purchases a vehicle and makes modifications itself, there is no violation of Federal law, even if the modified vehicle does not comply with the seat belt installation requirements of Standard No. 208. I hope you find this information helpful. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: 9923

Paul L. Anderson, President
Van-Con, Inc.
P.O. Box 237
123 William Street
Middlesex, NJ 08846-0237

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

ref:217 d:5/18/94

ID: aiam4690

"Dear Ms. Regan: This responds to your letter seeking an interpretatio of how our laws and regulations would apply to a product you have invented. Your product is designed to alter the alignment of the webbing of a lap/shoulder safety belt to improve the fit of the safety belt on children weighing between 40 and 85 pounds. According to your letter, the product is designed to be firmly attached to the webbing of both the lap belt portion and the shoulder belt portion of the safety belt. When the product is attached, it pulls down the shoulder belt portion of the safety belt so that it will pass across the child's chest and shoulder, instead of the neck. You asked whether this product would be considered a safety belt or a child restraint system for the purposes of our safety standards. The answer is that your product would not be considered to be either for the purposes of our standards, as explained below. Section S3 of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR 571.209) defines a 'seat belt assembly' as 'any strap, webbing, or similar device designed to secure a person in a motor vehicle in order to mitigate the results of any accident, including all necessary buckles and other fasteners, and all hardware designed for installing such seat belt assembly in a motor vehicle.' (Emphasis added). Your device is not itself designed to secure a child in a motor vehicle. Instead, your device is designed to alter the alignment of the existing safety belt in the vehicle, so that the existing safety belt system in the vehicle can be adjusted to better fit a child occupant. Therefore, your device would not be a 'seat belt assembly' within the meaning of Standard No. 209. Section S4 of Standard No. 213 (49 CFR 571.213) defines a 'child restraint system' as 'any device except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less.' (Emphasis added). As explained above, your device is not a Type I or Type II seat belt. Additionally, for the reasons explained above, your device is not itself designed to restrain, seat, or position children. The restraining of the child would be accomplished entirely by the safety belt system already installed in the vehicle. Your device would simply alter the alignment of that safety belt system for the child. Therefore, your device would not be a 'child restraint system' within the meaning of Standard No. 213. You also asked for information regarding your responsibilities as the manufacturer and seller of this product. I have enclosed an information sheet we have prepared for new manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment. I have also enclosed copies of a February 11, 1988 letter to Mr. Roderick A. Boutin and a November 22, 1988 letter to Ms. Claire Haven. These two letters describe how products intended to enhance the comfort of safety belt wearers could be affected by our laws and regulations. The information sheet explains how to obtain copies of our laws and regulations. I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures";

ID: 18574caps.etc

Ms. Annemarie Shelness
Shelness Productions
P.O. Box 30456
Winston-Salem, NC 27130-045

Dear Ms. Shelness:

This responds to your letter and telephone call asking about the labeling requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems" (49 CFR 571.213) for add-on child restraints. I apologize for the delay in responding.

You ask whether the warnings and other information required by S5.5.1 and S5.5.2 of Standard 213 may be changed by: (1) rewording some of the required text; (2) adding text and WARNING headings; and (3) using upper and lower case letters for text printed in the standard in all capital letters. We will address those questions below, and have enclosed copies of the letters we reference in our answers.

Rewording Required Text

You have proposed to reword the text in two ways. First, S5.5.2(e) of the standard requires manufacturers to include the statement: "This child restraint system conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards." You would like to reword this statement, and combine it with another required statement, to read: "This product fulfils the requirements of the U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 213 and is certified for use in motor vehicles and for use in aircraft." Second, S5.5.2(g) requires the statement: ". . . Secure this child restraint with a vehicle belt as specified in the manufacturer's instructions located __________." You have reworded this by, among other things, not specifying the location of the printed instructions here, but have moved that information elsewhere.

We have carefully considered your suggestion and regret to inform you that we cannot, by interpretation, permit your proposed rewording of the required statements.

Paragraph S5.5 of Standard 213 requires child restraints to be permanently labeled with certain information, including specific statements provided in quotations in the standard. The agency's longstanding position is that the wording on child restraint labels must be as specified in S5.5, with very limited exceptions. We have permitted certain minor variations that clarified text and did not make any substantive change in the meaning of the warning specified for the label. (See, e.g., copy of December 18, 1980, letter to Ford Motor Company, changing the word form from the plural "instructions" to the singular "instruction." This change allowed the specified language to be clarified by making it more appropriate for child restraints that had a single instruction pertaining to a particular feature.) All in all, we have taken a strict view that the wording required by Standard 213 may not be altered.

The rewording you have done to the specified text is not minor. Our position is that changes of this nature to the specified text cannot be permitted.

Adding Text and Headings

You also wish to add text and headings to the labeling specified by Standard 213. For example, you wish to add the statements: "Please read and understand the information in this booklet before using your infant restraint. Store the booklet in the plastic pocket located in the back of the restraint, just above the rocker base. Consult it often to make sure you are using the restraint correctly. . . . In a severe crash your child could . . . be ejected from the vehicle into the roadway." You also propose to add headings in the label, such as one stating "WARNING" with an alert symbol (a triangle with an exclamation point inside), highlighted on a bright yellow background, and others (in bold and not on a yellow background) stating "For Your Information" and "Your Child's Protection is in Your Hands."

Your added text would be permitted. NHTSA has permitted manufacturers to provide information in addition to the required information, provided that the additional information is presented in a manner that is not likely to obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information or otherwise defeat its purpose. (See copy of April 17, 1989 letter to Cosco, Inc., permitting manufacturers to express required information in equivalent English and metric units.) Your added text does not appear likely to have those negative impacts on the required information, and thus would be permitted.

We generally note, however, that the yellow highlighted WARNING heading should be used judiciously so as not to dilute its eye-catching impact. A yellow highlighted WARNING heading with the alert symbol you use is required for the air bag warning label that must be placed on rear-facing child restraint systems. The yellow highlighted WARNING heading and alert symbol are required for that label to attract the reader's attention and prevent rear-facing restraints from being used in seating positions with air bags. If the heading were overly used, the impact of the air bag warning label could be diluted and its effectiveness reduced. Manufacturers are advised to refrain from overusing the yellow highlighted WARNING heading and alert symbol.

Using Upper and Lower Case Letters

You wish to use upper and lower case letters in labeling that is set forth in Standard 213 in all capital letters. We conclude capitalization is not generally required if not expressly required, and that upper and lower case letters are permitted. A 1978 rulemaking notice had proposed to require the lettering to be in "block letters" and had set forth the required text in all capital letters. The agency stated in the preamble to the December 13, 1979, final rule following the proposal that it was not requiring the block letters and was permitting the labeling to be in upper and lower case lettering (44 FR 72134).⁽¹⁾ Thus, while the wording is shown in capital letters in the standard, we conclude that Standard 213 does not require that the messages be capitalized.

We note that there have been interpretations since the 1979 rule that have interpreted Standard 213 as requiring warnings to be capitalized because they are set forth in Standard 213 in capitalized letters (e.g., preamble to a February 16, 1994, final rule concerning labeling add-on restraints). The agency has also stated its belief that safety messages in capitalized letters were more likely to be noticed and read. However, in concluding that the warnings had to be capitalized, the agency did not account for the statements in the preamble to the 1979 rule that indicated that upper and lower case lettering could be provided as an option to capitalized letters. To the extent the previous interpretations requiring capitalization are inconsistent with today's letter, those interpretations are superceded. Note, however, that where Standard 213 expressly requires capitalized letters, using lower case letters is not an option (e.g., manufacturer's restrictions on adjustment positions for built-in restraints must be capitalized under S5.5.5(g)(2) of the standard).

I hope this information is helpful. If you have other questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:213
d.5/4/99

1. That notice pertained to labeling for add-on restraints, required by what is now S5.5.2(a) through (k), but did not include S5.5.2(i) or the air bag warning labels required by S5.5.2(k). Those requirements were adopted at a later date.

ID: aiam5077

"Dear Mrs. Sutlief: This responds to your request to the NHTSA's Aut Safety Hotline for information on Federal regulations concerning safety belts and tiedowns for vans used for transporting disabled and senior citizens. Your specific concerns relate to whether Federal law mandates safety belt use in these vans. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations to you. Federal laws administered by this agency regulate the manufacture and sale of new vehicles. It leaves the individual States free to address questions about the registration and operation of vehicles within their borders. Questions about whether persons are required to use their safety belts while riding in a motor vehicle relate to the operation of a vehicle, and are thus addressed by the individual States, not the Federal government. Accordingly, your question about whether passengers riding in your vans must use their safety belts is one that should be addressed to the State of Kansas. I note, however, that while the Federal government leaves these questions of requirements in this area to the individual States, this agency strongly encourages the use of safety belts by all persons in a vehicle every time they ride in a vehicle. In addition, if your organization is subject to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act, regulations implementing that Act require installation of wheelchair securement devices and passenger seat belts and shoulder harnesses. For further information concerning the regulations implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act you should contact: Robert C. Ashby, C-50, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh St. SW, Washington, DC 20590. It might be helpful for me to set out the Federal requirements for new motor vehicles. A provision of Federal law, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act), authorizes this agency to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, which set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. It is a violation of Federal law for any person to manufacture or sell any new vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that does not comply with all applicable safety standards. Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires safety belts to be installed at 'designated seating positions.' The specified requirements for belt installation vary, depending on the particular vehicle type and seating position within the vehicle. However, Standard No. 208 would not require installation of a safety belt at a wheelchair securement location, because such a location would not be a 'designated seating position,' as that term is defined in 49 CFR 571.3. Furthermore, none of the other Federal motor vehicle safety standards require installation of, or set forth performance requirements for, wheelchair securement devices. If a safety belt is installed at a wheelchair securement location, either voluntarilly or pursuant to another state or federal requirement, the safety belt must comply with the requirements of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. Standard No. 209 sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies as separate items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act also requires that manufacturers of 'motor vehicle equipment' notify purchasers and repair at no cost to the purchasers equipment that is determined to contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety. Wheelchair securement devices are items of 'motor vehicle equipment' within the meaning of the Safety Act. Hence, manufacturers of wheelchair securement devices are obliged to notify and remedy without charge any defects related to motor vehicle safety that occur in their products. You may also be interested to learn that this agency currently has a rulemaking pending to set forth performance requirements for wheelchair securement devices. While this proposal relates only to wheelchair securement devices installed in school buses, I am enclosing a copy of the notice of proposed rulemaking for your information. 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";

ID: aiam0472

Dear Mr. Sage: This is in reply to your letter of October 14, 1971, to Mr. Lewis Owe of this Office concerning an interpretation regarding your Truck-Lite No. 127 license plate light.; The requested interpretation concerns the 8 degree incident light angl specified in SAE J587, 'License Plate Lamps,' as follows:; >>>'When a single lamp is used to illuminate the plate, the lamp an license plate holder shall bear such relation to each other that at no point on the plate will the incident light make an angle of less than 8 deg to the plane of the plate.'<<<; Since the 8 degree incident light angle is also a requirement o Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, all license plate lamp designs must conform to it. It is our position that the angle be measured from the optical center of the lens, therefore, the Electrical Testing Laboratories' position is valid. That is, the incident light angle of your lamp, without the paint shield and when mounted as it will be installed on the vehicle, is below the 8 degree minimum requirement.; Sincerely, E. T. Driver, Director, Office of Operating Systems, Moto Vehicle Programs;

ID: aiam5052

"Dear Mr. Dawkins: This responds to your September 4, 1992 letter, i which you notified the agency of your intention to modify the Hybrid III dummies to be used in your company's certification testing for Standard No. 208. You stated your opinion that the Hybrid III test dummy currently specified in 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart E is unacceptable for determining whether vehicles equipped with two-point automatic belt systems comply with the injury criteria in Standard No. 208. This opinion is based on the chest deflection measurements you have obtained, which you characterize as 'erroneous, erratic, and nonsensical.' You indicated your belief that the inaccurate measurements arise because the ball on the end of the slider rod of the chest deflection transducer 'frequently' will pop out of its guide track. According to Chrysler, this occurs because the rubber bump stops on the dummy's sternum act as a fulcrum to pry the ball on the end of the slider rod out of its guide track during crash tests, during which the two-point torso belt deflects the dummy chest in both the fore-aft and lateral directions. Chrysler believes that this problem can be solved simply by modifying the thorax of the Hybrid III dummy by moving the rubber bump stops from the specified location on the sternum to the spine box of the dummy. Your letter indicates your belief that such a modification will not affect the calibration or measurement accuracy of the chest deflection transducer or the biofidelity of the Hybrid III thorax. You indicated that Chrysler intends to make this modification to the Hybrid III dummy thorax and use the modified dummy for Chrysler's certification testing of a 1994 model year vehicle for purposes of Standard No. 208. NHTSA's position on the issue of what steps manufacturers must take before certifying that their vehicles or equipment complywith an applicable safety standard has been often stated and applies with equal force in this situation. The compliance test procedures set forth in Standard No. 208 must be followed by this agency during our compliance testing. In this instance, that means that NHTSA's compliance testing will be conducted using the Hybrid III test dummy specified in Part 572, Subpart E, with the rubber bump stops in the location specified therein. Manufacturers certifying compliance with the safety standards are not required to follow exactly the compliance test procedures set forth in the applicable standard. In fact, manufacturers are not even required to conduct any actual testing before certifying that their products comply with applicable safety standards. However, to avoid liability for civil penalties in connection with any noncompliance that may be determined to exist, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) requires that the manufacturer exercise 'due care' to assure compliance and in making its certification. It may be simplest for a manufacturer to establish that it exercised 'due care' if the manufacturer has conducted testing that strictly followed the compliance test procedures set forth in the standard. However, 'due care' might also be shown using modified test procedures if the manufacturer could demonstrate that the modifications were not likely to have had a significant impact on the test results. In addition, 'due care' might be shown using engineering analyses, computer simulations, and the like. In this case, then, the relevant issue is not whether Chrysler uses a modified version of the Hybrid III test dummy for its certification testing. Instead, the issue is whether Chrysler can show that it would exercise 'due care' despite using a modified Hybrid III test dummy for its certification testing. This agency does not make any determinations as to whether 'due care' has been exercised except in the context of an enforcement proceeding. Hence, Chrysler will have to make the initial decision as to whether a certification based on the modified Hybrid III dummy could be made in the exercise of 'due care.' Your letter states that Chrysler's modifications to the test dummy 'will not affect the calibration or measurement accuracy of the chest deflection transducer or biofidelity of the Hybrid III thorax.' If Chrysler can demonstrate that these statements are correct, Chrysler may be able to show that it exercised 'due care' in connection with the use of the modified Hybrid III dummy. Of course, a manufacturer that can show it exercised due care would still be subject to the statutory obligation to notify owners and remedy any vehicles that are determined not to conform to Standard No. 208. However, this same obligation would apply even to manufacturers that had conducted testing using an unmodified Hybrid III test dummy. Turning from Chrysler's particular question to the standard in general, NHTSA notes that it has undertaken research examining the issue of chest deflection measurements by the Hybrid III test dummy. An extensive discussion of the agency research and analysis of this issue may be found in the interim final rule postponing the use of the Hybrid III dummy in vehicles that do not use either seat belts or air bags (55 FR 39280, September 26, 1990, copy enclosed). In that notice, NHTSA indicated that it had received significant data from sources outside the agency, including General Motors, Mercedes-Benz, Toyota, INRETS (a French government research and development group), and the Motor Industry Research Association (a British group). The agency would be very interested in examining any data or test results that Chrysler may have on this subject, especially the assertion that the ball on the end of the chest deflection rod comes out of its track during crash test conditions. Please send all such information to: Barry Felrice, NHTSA Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, Room 5401, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you need any further information or have some further questions on this subject. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure";