ID: aiam0850

Dear Mr. Rhude: This is in reply to your letter of July 5, 1972, concerning th application of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials', to countertop materials used in recreational vehicles.; With regard to the specific components you have listed, sink tops vanity tops, and shelves would be considered 'compartment shelves' under paragraph S4.1 of Standard No. 302, and would therefore be subject to the requirements of the Standard. You are correct in assuming that the material used for countertops would be subject to the requirements of the Standard whenever it is used for the manufacture of components enumerated in S4.1.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: nht89-1.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/10/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: JOSEPH F. MIKOLL -- VICE PRESIDENT TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT CORP.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 12/15/88 FROM JOSEPH F. MIKOLL TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, OCC 2812; LETTER DATED 12/03/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO JOSEPH F. MIKOLL; LETTER DATED 08/11/88 FROM JOSEPH F. MIKOLL TO ERIKA Z. JONES

TEXT: Dear Mr. Mikoll:

This responds to your letter asking for clarification of my November 3, 1988 letter to you. In a letter dated August 11, 1988, you requested my opinion concerning the acceptability of installing a new product you are developing (a "safety bar") in schoo l buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less instead of installing safety belts in those vehicles. The "safety bar" consists, in part, of two curved metal poles in planes that are parallel to the longitudinal centerline of the bus. The curved metal poles are attached to the outside of the seat in front of the seat whose occupants are to be protected by the "safety bar." These curved poles are joined by three cross or transverse members that are parallel to the seat and ar e covered with padding. The padded surface extends over the entire width of the seat whose occupants it is intended to protect. When an occupant wishes to be seated, he or she must lift the safety bar and then sit down and allow the safety bar to lower so that it rests on the occupant's thighs. Additionally, a special strap resembling a very long seat belt assembly must be fastened around the safety bar to hold it in position in the event of a crash.

In my November 3, 1988 reply to your letter, I explained that the crash protection requirements for school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less are set forth in S5(b) of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.222). That section requires that each designated seating position be equipped with either safety belts or a protection system that requires no action by vehicle occupants. Since the "safety bar" is not a protection system that requires no action by vehicle occupants, my November 3 letter explained that the "safety bar" could not be installed in place of safety belts in small school buses; i.e., school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less.

My November 3, 1988 letter also explained that safety bars could be installed in small school buses in addition to safety belts, if the safety bars do not destroy the ability of the required safety belts to

comply with the requirements of our safety standards. I also stated that a manufacturer that installed these safety bars in small school buses would have to certify that the bus in which the safety bars were installed complied with the school bus emerge ncy exit requirements of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release (49 CFR @ 571.217) and with the impact zone requirements specified in S5.3 of Standard No. 222.

You asked whether my November 3, 1988 letter addressed the situation for both large school buses (i.e., those with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds) and small school buses, or whether it addressed only small school buses. Your previous letter asked onl y about small school buses, so my November 3 letter addressed those vehicles only. Assuming this was the case, you asked for "an opinion that [the safety bar] does not conflict with any standard for large school bus installation." I am happy to have thi s chance to explain our regulations to you.

Let me begin by noting that the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires each manufacturer to certify that each of its motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment complies with all applicable safety standards. Because of this statuto ry provision, NHTSA has no authority to approve, endorse, or offer assurances of compliance for your product. Instead, any manufacturer that installs your safety bar in its large school buses must itself certify that those large school buses comply with all applicable safety standards when the safety bars are installed.

The occupant crash protection requirements for large school buses are set forth in Standard No. 222. No provision of Standard No. 222 expressly prohibits the installation of "safety bars" in large school buses. Hence, "safety bars" can be installed in a large school bus, provided that the manufacturer of the bus certifies that it complies with all applicable requirements set forth in the safety standards with the safety bars installed. These requirements include the emergency exit requirements specif ied in Standard No. 217, all of the requirements of Standard No. 222, and the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR @ 571.302).

Please let me know if you have any further questions or need additional information.

Sincerely,

ID: aiam0510

Dear Mr. Teich: This is in reply to your letter of November 9, 1971, inquiring o behalf of the Ford Motor Company to whom you supply synthetic sewing threads, whether there is a specification for the flammability of sewing thread.; Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interio Materials' (49 CFR 571.302) (copy enclosed), which becomes effective September 1, 1972, establishes minimum requirements for the flammability of certain motor vehicle components which are listed in S4.1 of the standard. Any synthetic or other thread that is used in the manufacture of any of these components must meet the standards requirements when tested as part of the component.; If you have additional questions, please let us know. Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4415

Dear Mr. Miller: This responds to your September 25, 1987, letter to Mr. Val Radovich o NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Standards and your October 19, 1987 letter to my office concerning paragraph S4.2.1 of Safety Standard No. 302, *Flammability of Interior Materials*.; You ask whether the thread that is used in the manufacture of a sea cushion is tested as part of the component. The answer is yes. In a March 10, 1978 interpretation of Standard No. 302, NHTSA recognized that stitching that does not adhere at every point of contact should be tested separately under S4.2.1. However, the agency also determined that, from the standpoint of practicality, the stitching cannot be tested separately in the prescribed manner. NHTSA thus concluded that stitching will be tested as part of the material itself.; Please contact us if you have further questions. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3953

Dear Mr. Astle: This responds to your letter to Steve Kratzke of my staff asking for a interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 302, *Flammability of interior materials* (49 CFR 571.302). Specifically, you asked if the requirements of that standard apply to aftermarket seat covers. While the standard applies only to new motor vehicles, its requirements do indirectly affect some aftermarket seat covers. As explained in greater detail in the attached letter to Mr. Cederbaum regarding the same issue, rendering inoperative equipment or elements of design installed in a vehicle pursuant to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards is prohibited if done by certain commercial enterprises, but is permitted if done by the vehicle owner. Thus, if a seat cover in a complying vehicle were replaced with a noncomplying seat cover by one of those enterprises, that act would violate the above prohibition. The same act, if done by the owner, would not be a violation.; Should you need further information or have any further questions i this area, please contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0589

Dear Mr. Pieratt: This is in reply to your letter of December 24, 1971, concerning Moto Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials.'; You ask whether the entire interior of a van-type vehicle that has n divider behind the driver would be considered the passenger compartment. The answer to this question is no. The cargo area of such a vehicle would not be considered a 'vehicle occupant compartment' under S4.1 of Standard No. 302, and materials used in the cargo area need not comply with the standard.; You ask further whether a metal compartment bin or rack such as thos used in a telephone truck for storage must be certified. If the bin is within the passenger compartment, and is installed in the truck before its sale to a consumer, it would be required under S4.1, as a 'compartment shelf' to meet the requirements of the standard. Certification would be the responsibility of the truck manufacturer, however, and not the manufacturer of the compartment. If the bin or rack is not within the passenger compartment, it need not meet the requirements of the standard.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: 3039yy

Mr. Michael L. Harmon
President
Classic Interiors
30244-2 County Road 12 West
Elkhart, IN 46514

Dear Mr. Harmon:

This responds to your letter asking whether Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, permits the installation of a built-in child restraint system (i.e., a child restraint system that is an integral part of the vehicle) in a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV), and if so, what requirements apply.

As discussed below, a child restraint system built into an MPV would fall within the definition of "child restraint system" in Standard No. 213 and would therefore have to comply with all the provisions of the standard that are generally applicable to child restraint systems. Since such a restraint would not be portable, it would not have to meet any requirement that is, by its own terms, or those of the compliance test procedure for that requirement, specifically applicable to "add-on child restraint systems" only. Since it would be built into an MPV instead of a passenger car, it would not have to meet any requirement that is, for the same reasons, specifically applicable to "built-in child restraint systems" only.

The following sections of Standard No. 213 contain requirements that would apply to a child restraint built into an MPV: S5.2.1 (head support surface), S5.2.2 (torso impact protection), S5.2.4 (protrusion limitation), S5.4 (belts, buckles and webbing), and S5.7 (flammability). The principle requirements of the standard that would not apply are those in S5.l.l relating to dynamic performance.

In view of the importance of the dynamic performance requirements for ensuring the safety of child restraint systems, we intend to begin rulemaking to apply those requirements to all built-in systems, not just to those installed in passenger cars. In the meantime, we suggest that manufacturers of such systems for MPVs carefully consider whether the systems provide protection comparable to that provided by built-in child restraint systems in passenger cars. You should also be aware that the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (l5 U.S.C. 1381-l431) imposes responsibilities on manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment regarding safety-related defects. Manufacturers are responsible for ensuring that the vehicles and equipment they manufacture are free from safety-related defects and can perform their intended function safely. If the manufacturer or the agency determines that a safety-related defect (or noncompliance with an FMVSS) exists, the manufacturer is obligated under 151 et seq. of the Act to notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem without charge. Manufacturers who fail to provide notification of or remedy for a defect or noncompliance may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation.

Legal Analysis

Standard No. 2l3 applies to child restraint systems for use in motor vehicles and aircraft. See section S3. The term "child restraint system" is defined 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." See section S4. A child restraint system that is an integral part of an MPV would come within this definition.

Some of Standard No. 2l3's requirements apply generally to "child restraint systems," i.e., without regard to whether a child restraint system is built-in or add-on or whether, if it is built-in, it is installed in a car or other type of vehicle. Since a child restraint system which is an integral part of an MPV comes within the definition of "child restraint system," it is required to meet all such requirements unless excepted. The following sections of Standard 213 contain requirements which apply generally to "child restraint systems": S5.2.1 (head support surface), S5.2.2 (torso impact protection), S5.2.4 (protrusion limitation), S5.4 (belts, buckles and webbing), and S5.7 (flammability).

In a number of instances, however, particularly with respect to dynamic performance, Standard No. 2l3 either specifies separate requirements for "add-on child restraint systems" and "built-in child restraint systems," or provides a test procedure for these two types of child restraint systems only. The standard defines "add-on child restraint system" without respect to the type of vehicle to which it might be added, i.e., as "any portable child restraint system." The term "built-in child restraint system" is defined more restrictively, as "any child restraint system which is an integral part of a passenger car." (Emphasis added.) A child restraint system which is an integral part of an MPV does not come within either of these definitions, since such a restraint is neither portable nor a part of a passenger car. Therefore, Standard No. 2l3's requirements for "add-on child restraint systems" and "built-in child restraint systems," do not apply to a child restraint system which is an integral part of an MPV. Similarly, those requirements for which the standard specifies a test procedure for "add-on child restraint systems" and "built-in child restraint systems" only do not apply to a child restraint system which is an integral part of an MPV.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /ref:213 d:6/l2/9l

ID: nht91-5.15

DATE: August 7, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Dale R. Thompson -- Executive Director, Anderson County Board for the Mentally Retarded and Developmentally Disabled

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-28-91 from Dale R. Thompson to Mary Versailles

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of June 28, 1991, requesting information regarding transportation of handicapped children ages 3 and 4. In your letter and in subsequent phone conversations with Mary Versailles of my staff, you indicated that children in this age group "are officially classified as public school children under recent implementation of Public Law 99-457. Public Law 99-457 requires that public schools provide educational and related services (including transportation) to eligible handicapped children." Previously, your agency had transportated these children, using 15 passenger vans, to your center for developmental training and custodial care. You are now planning to coordinate your services with the local public schools. You plan to use your vans to transport these children to and from the public school. While at the school, the children would receive approximately two hours of educational services from public school teachers. Prior to and after these services, the children would receive custodial care by your staff.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to clarify the operation of Federal law as it applies to school buses. You asked the following three questions about transporting these children.

1. The vehicles our agency has previously purchased to transport this population prior to their public school age classification does not meet FMVSS/(NHTSA) standards as a "school bus". As we are proposing to utilize these vehicles to transport this population TO and FROM a public school facility for both educational and custodial care, are our vehicles subject to any current, or proposed (NHTSA) requirements? NOTE 1. Each child will receive approximately 2 hours of educational services from the school system and 3-4 hours of custodial care per day at the same location.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act), defines a "school bus" as a vehicle that "is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools." The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has stated that whether a program for preprimary-age students is a "school" is determined by whether the program is educational or custodial. Because your students will be receiving approximately two hours of education each day, the program would be considered educational.

The Act gives NHTSA the authority to regulate the MANUFACTURE and SALE of new vehicles, including new school buses. NHTSA defines "school bus" as a

motor vehicle designed for carrying 11 or more persons, including a driver, and sold for transporting students to and from school or school-related events. See 49 CFR Part 571.3. Note that in determining whether a vehicle is a school bus, one must consider both the vehicle's seating capacity, and its intended use. Thus, under Federal law, a 12-15 passenger van is considered a school bus if its intended use is to transport school children.

NHTSA has issued Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all new school buses. It is a violation of Federal law for any person to sell as a school bus any new vehicle that does not comply with all school bus safety standards. Since you will be transporting children to school, it would be a violation of Federal law for any person, aware of the vehicles' intended use, to sell you a vehicle that is not a school bus.

On the other hand, without violating any provision of Federal law, you may USE a vehicle which does not comply with Federal school bus regulations to transport school children. This is so because the individual States have authority over the use of vehicles. Therefore, to determine whether you may use noncomplying vans to transport school children, you must look to state law. In addition, using noncomplying vans as a school bus could result in increased liability in the event of an accident. You might want to consult your attorney and insurance company to discuss this matter.

2. Would these vehicles be subject to (NHTSA)/FMVSS requirements if they were only used to transport this population FROM the educational/custodial location each afternoon (From school to home only). NOTE 2. After mid-morning public school services are completed, our agency,will be providing afternoon custodial care prior to the return trip home.

NHTSA regulations define a "school bus" as a bus used for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events. See 49 CFR Part 571.3. We interpret the term "to and from" to be inclusive of situations where a bus is used to transport children only one way between home and the school. We also note that the Act's definition of school bus uses the term "to or from school."

3. What safety features are required of a "bus" in order to comply with (NHTSA)/FMVSS standards. (NOTE: In a subsequent phone conversation, you stated that you were interested in which standards are applicable to a "school bus.")

The following is a list of all Federal motor vehicle safety standards that include requirements for school buses:

Standards No. 101 through 104; Standard No. 105 (school buses with hydraulic service brake systems); Standards No. 106 through 108; Standards No. 111 through 113; Standard No. 115; Standard No. 116 (school buses with hydraulic service brake systems); Standards No. 119 and 120; Standard No. 121 (school buses with air brake systems); Standard No. 124;

Standard No. 131 (effective September 1, 1992); Standards No. 201 through 204 (school buses with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less); Standard No. 205; Standards No. 207 through 210; Standard No. 212 (school buses with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less); Standard No. 217; Standard No. 219 (school buses with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less); Standard No. 220; Standard No. 221 (school buses with GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds); Standard No. 222; Standards No. 301 and 302.

Some of these standards have unique requirements for school buses, including, but not necessarily limited to, Standards No. 105, 108, 111, 217, and 301. Other standards are applicable only to school buses, including Standards No. 131, 220, 221, and 222. Standard No. 131 requires all school buses manufactured after September 1, 1992 to have a stop signal arm. Standard No. 220 establishes requirements for school bus rollover protection. Standard No. 221 establishes strength requirements for the body panel joints in school buses. Standard No. 222 establishes minimum crash protection levels for occupants on school buses. Under Standard No. 222, small school buses (those with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less) must be equipped with lap belts. For large school bus, the standard requires occupant protection through a concept called "compartmentalization" - strong, well-padded, well-anchored, high-backed, evenly spaced seats.

The Federal motor vehicle safety standards are contained in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 571. You may find a copy of 49 CFR Part 571 at a Federal Depository Library in your State. If you so choose, you may purchase a copy of the volume of Title 49 which includes Part 571 from the United States Printing Office (GPO), Washington, D.C., 20402, (202) 783-3238.

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

ID: aiam0603

Dear Mr. Utsunomiya: This is in reply to your letter of January 28, 1972, in which you lis specific interior components and ask whether they are required to comply with Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials.' You state that these components are not designed to be energy absorbing in some vehicles.; With regard to the parcel shelf and scarf plate, as we indicated to yo in our letter of September 24, 1971, these components appear to closely resemble or to be merely different descriptions of items that are enumerated in S4.1 of Standard No. 302. If so, they must comply with the requirements. We also mentioned to you in that latter than seaming welt and seaming rubber should be considered as part of the component to which it is attached, and for which it provides a seam.; With regard to the other items you list, you should consider th language of S4.1 that reads, '. . . other interior materials . . . designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash.' If in fact, as you indicate, these components are not so designed, then they need not meet the requirements of the standard. I would add that NHTSA is presently reviewing this requirement, and it may be modified in the near future.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2533

Dear Mr. Bohmer: This responds to your February 25, 1977, letter asking whether you motor home conversions make you a manufacturer or an alterer for purposes of compliance with the regulations of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).; In your conversion of motor homes, you install used bodies on ne chassis. The NHTSA considers the mounting of a used body on a new chassis to be the manufacture of a new motor vehicle that requires certification. This makes you a manufacturer rather than an alterer. The rules for certification are found in Part 567, *Certification*, and Part 568, *Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages*. I have enclosed copies of these regulations for your information.; Your second question asks whether the converted vehicle must compl with Standard No. 302, *Flammability of Interior Materials*, even though the original body was manufactured prior to the effective date of the standard. Vehicles must comply with all standards in effect on the date of their manufacture. For vehicles that you complete by mounting a body on a new chassis, you are permitted to treat as the date of manufacture, the date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle (as defined in Part 568), the date of final completion of the vehicle, or a date between those dates. Therefore, it appears that the vehicle you manufacture would be required to comply with Standard No. 302.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel