ID: 1739y

Mr. Keith A. McDowell
Vice President - Engineering
Transportation Products Group
American Seating Company
901 Broadway, N.W.
Grand Rapids, MI 49504

Dear Mr. McDowell:

This responds to your recent letter asking this agency to "provide guidelines for the design and installation of seat belt assemblies on large buses (over 10,000 pounds GVW)." You explained that you were interested in this information for passenger seats of large buses used in transit service, not as school buses. I am happy to be able to explain our requirements to you.

Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.208) sets forth the crash protection requirements applicable to most vehicle types. Section S4.4 of that standard sets forth the requirements applicable to large buses other than school buses. That section requires large buses to have either a complete automatic protection system for the bus driver's seating position, or a seat belt assembly that conforms with Standard No. 209 at the driver's seating position. Standard No. 208 does not specify any requirements for either an automatic protection system or seat belt assemblies to be installed at any other seating positions in large buses.

Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages (49 CFR /571.210) also includes requirements applicable to the anchorages for any belt assemblies installed at the driver's seating position on large buses. Specifically, section S4.1.2 of Standard No. 210 provides that: "Seat belt anchorages for a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly shall be installed for each designated seating position, except a passenger seat in a bus or a designated seating position for which seat belt anchorages for a Type 2 seat belt assembly are required by S4.1.1." As with Standard No. 208, Standard No. 210 exempts passenger seats in large buses from its requirements.

Finally, Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR /571.209) sets forth requirements applicable to all seat belt assemblies for use in motor vehicles, including large buses. Thus, any seat belt assembly installed at the driver's position in a large bus would have to be certified as complying with Standard No. 209, as would any seat belt assembly voluntarily provided by a manufacturer for passenger seating positions in a large bus.

In short, our standards do not require seat belt assemblies to be installed in passenger seats of large buses, but any seat belt assemblies that are installed at those positions would have to comply with Standard No. 209. Your letter indicated that you were generally aware of the fact that seat belt assemblies were not required to be installed at passenger seating positions of large buses. Nevertheless, you asked us to provide you with "guidelines" for such installations, in response to the continuing demand for such installations by your company's customers. As a policy matter, NHTSA does not provide the sort of guidelines you have requested.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) sets forth certain specific requirements that must be satisfied by each of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards established by this agency. Among these requirements are that each safety standard shall be practicable, meet the need for motor vehicle safety, and be stated in objective terms (section 103(a) of the Safety Act) and each standard shall be reasonable, practicable, and appropriate for the particular type of vehicle for which it is prescribed (section 103(f)(3) of the Safety Act). NHTSA has determined that the current requirements of Standards No. 208 and 210, which do not apply to passenger seats in large buses, meet all of the statutory criteria.

The issuance of "guidelines" specifying measures beyond those required by our standards could readily be misinterpreted as an agency decision that these additional measures are necessary to satisfy the criteria of the Safety Act, or indirectly force manufacturers to comply with the "guidelines," in addition to the standards issued under the Safety Act. Either or both of these results would be inappropriate for passenger seats on large buses, because the information currently available to NHTSA indicates that no additional requirements are necessary in this area.

Indeed, if the agency were to learn of additional information suggesting the current requirements no longer meet all the statutory criteria, and that requirements for the installation of seat belt assemblies at passenger seats of large school buses would meet all the statutory criteria, we would have an obligation to consider changing the applicable standards. Any such change would be required to be made through the ordinary, notice-and-comment rulemaking process, rather than through issuance of supplemental guidelines.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

/ref:208#209#210 d:3/22/89

ID: 09-003169 nissan.draft.dj.aug20

ID: 04-009675drn

Mr. Ira Schaffer
State of New York
328 State Street
Schenectady, NY 12305




Dear Mr. Schaffer:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of whether a Type 2 seat belt for the drivers seating position in a school bus with a gross vehicle weight (GVWR) over 10,000 pounds, may be replaced with a Type 1 belt. You write that owner/operators of the school buses are making changes to their own vehicles. The answer is yes, the Type 2 seat belt may be replaced with a Type 1 seat belt.

Requirements for buses (including school buses) with GVWRs over 10,000 pounds are at S4.4.3, Buses manufactured on or after September 1, 1991, of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. S4.4.3.1 provides that each bus with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds shall comply with the requirements of S4.4.2.1 or S4.4.2.2. Most manufacturers meet S4.4.3.1 by installing a seat belt at the drivers position, as provided in S4.4.2.2Second option -belt system- driver only. S4.4.2.2 states in part:

The vehicle shall, at the drivers designated seating position, have either a Type 1 or a Type 2 seat belt assembly that conforms to 571.209 of this part [FMVSS No. 209, Seat belt assemblies] and S7.2 of this Standard. A Type 1 belt assembly or the pelvic portion of a dual retractor Type 2 belt assembly installed at the drivers seating position shall include either an emergency locking retractor or an automatic locking retractor.

Thus, for a school bus with a GVWR over 10,000 pounds (manufactured on or after September 1, 1991), FMVSS No. 208 permits the drivers designated seating position to have either a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly.

As you are aware, after the first retail sale of a vehicle, 30122 of the Safety Act (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.) limits the modifications that can be made by certain businesses to vehicles. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses may not "knowingly make inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or equipment in compliance with an applicable safety standard. Therefore, any modifications to the existing seat belt system made by an entity in the categories listed in 30122 must be made in such a way so that the vehicle continues to conform to existing standards. Since FMVSS No. 208 permits either a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly at the drivers designated seating position, an entity listed in 30122 may install a Type 1 seat belt assembly (in place of the Type 2 assembly). However, the modification must be made such that the Type 1 seat belt assembly meets the FMVSSs for seat belt strength, webbing, positioning, locking, retraction/stowage, latch mechanism, and other requirements.

It is possible the Type 1 replacement seat belts will not have retractors. As stated above, FMVSS No. 208 requires either an emergency locking retractor or an automatic locking retractor. Without retractors, it is likely the seat belts would also, not meet the latch mechanism requirement of S7.2 of FMVSS No. 208 which states: "The components of the latch mechanism shall be accessible to a seated occupant in both the stowed and operational positions".

Section 30122 does not apply to owners modifying their own vehicles. Thus, the operators may install the lap belts without regard to the "make inoperative" prohibition. However, we strongly recommend that modifications be made without degrading the safety of the vehicles.

Even though the safety standards allow Type 1 seat belts under the circumstances discussed above, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has been requiring more seating positions to have Type 2 belts in lighter vehicles. In addition, the bus manufacturer determined that the Type 2 seat belt was appropriate for its bus. Therefore, it is not clear this modification is the best for safety.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:208#209#222
d.2/9/05

ID: nht95-2.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 10, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Edward Gower, Esq. -- Chief-Counsel, Illinois Department of Transportation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 1/27/95 LETTER FROM J. RANDLE SCHICK TO SUSAN KUNKEL (OCC 10696)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Gower:

In response to a request by Larry Wort, Chief of the Bureau of Safety Programs, I have reviewed the provisions of Senate Bill No. 52, now awaiting action in the Illinois General Assembly, to determine whether the provisions relating to school buses would conflict with applicable Federal law. My review leads me to conclude that there is a conflict that could result in Federal preemption in some circumstances. I am specifically concerned about the bill's redefinition of "school bus."

By way of background information, Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code (Safety Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and equipment p rior to sale to the first retail purchaser. Following the first retail purchase, the use of vehicles becomes a matter of state concern. The Safety Act further provides that a Federal standard preempts any state or local standard applicable to the same aspect of performance that is not identical to the Federal standard. 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)

NHTSA defines a "bus" as a passenger motor vehicle designed to carry more than 10 persons, and further defines a "school bus" as a bus that is sold for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, except a bus sold for op eration as a common carrier in urban transportation. 49 CFR 571.3.

Senate Bill No. 52 proposes to amend the definition of "school bus" in section 1-182 of 625 ILCS by excluding

3. A motor vehicle designed for the transportation of not less than 7 nor more than 16 persons that is operated by or for a public or private primary or secondary school, including any primary or secondary school operated by a religious institution, for the purpose of transporting not more than 15 students to and from interscholastic athletic or other interscholastic or school sponsored activities.

There is thus an inconsistency between the definition in 49 CFR 571.3 and the definition in Senate Bill No. 52, since a vehicle with a capacity of 11-16 persons that is sold for school transportation would be a school bus for Federal purposes but not for State purposes.

This inconsistency matters at the point of sale of a school bus. The Federal safety standards impose a number of requirements on school buses that do not apply to other buses. See, e.g., 49 CFR 571.222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection . If a dealer were to sell a 11-16 person bus to a school for use in transporting students, the Federal school bus requirements would apply, notwithstanding the State law's exclusion of such a bus from the school bus definition.

I want to stress that the Federal law applies to dealers as well as to manufacturers. The obligations of a dealer are set forth at 49 U.S.C.30112(a), which provides that no one may manufacture or sell a new motor vehicle to which a vehicle safety standa rd applies unless the vehicle complies with the standard. A dealer who sells a bus for school use that does not meet the school bus standards would thus violate the law.

The amendment in Senate Bill No. 52 which would add 105 ILCS 5/29-6.3 is not inconsistent with the Safety Act. It has been our position that vehicles that do not comply with applicable Federal school bus safety standards may be borrowed or rented on a o ne-time or very occasional basis to transport students. Operators should be cautioned, however, that transporting students in other than complying school buses could result in additional liability in the event of an accident.

I hope the above information is helpful to you. If you have any further questions or need additional information, you may contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: gower

Edward Gower, Esq.
Chief Counsel
Illinois Department of Transportation
DOT Administration Building, Room 300
Springfield, IL 62764

Dear Mr. Gower:

In response to a request by Larry Wort, Chief of the Bureau of Safety Programs, I have reviewed the provisions of Senate Bill No. 52, now awaiting action in the Illinois General Assembly, to determine whether the provisions relating to school buses would conflict with applicable Federal law. My review leads me to conclude that there is a conflict that could result in Federal preemption in some circumstances. I am specifically concerned about the bill's redefinition of "school bus."

By way of background information, Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code (Safety Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and equipment prior to sale to the first retail purchaser. Following the first retail purchase, the use of vehicles becomes a matter of state concern. The Safety Act further provides that a Federal standard preempts any state or local standard applicable to the same aspect of performance that is not identical to the Federal standard. 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)

NHTSA defines a "bus" as a passenger motor vehicle designed to carry more than 10 persons, and further defines a "school bus" as a bus that is sold for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, except a bus sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation. 49 CFR 571.3.

Senate Bill No. 52 proposes to amend the definition of "school bus" in section 1-182 of 625 ILCS by excluding

3. A motor vehicle designed for the transportation of not less than 7 nor more than 16 persons that is operated by or for a public or private primary or secondary school, including any primary or secondary school operated by a religious institution, for the purpose of transporting not more than 15 students to and from interscholastic athletic or other interscholastic or school sponsored activities.

There is thus an inconsistency between the definition in 49 CFR 571.3 and the definition in Senate Bill No. 52, since a vehicle with a capacity of 11-16 persons that is sold for school transportation would be a school bus for Federal purposes but not for State purposes.

This inconsistency matters at the point of sale of a school bus. The Federal safety standards impose a number of requirements on school buses that do not apply to other buses. See, e.g., 49 CFR 571.222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection. If a dealer were to sell a 11-16 person bus to a school for use in transporting students, the Federal school bus requirements would apply, notwithstanding the State law's exclusion of such a bus from the school bus definition.

I want to stress that the Federal law applies to dealers as well as to manufacturers. The obligations of a dealer are set forth at 49 U.S.C.30112(a), which provides that no one may manufacture or sell a new motor vehicle to which a vehicle safety standard applies unless the vehicle complies with the standard. A dealer who sells a bus for school use that does not meet the school bus standards would thus violate the law.

The amendment in Senate Bill No. 52 which would add 105 ILCS 5/29-6.3 is not inconsistent with the Safety Act. It has been our position that vehicles that do not comply with applicable Federal school bus safety standards may be borrowed or rented on a one-time or very occasional basis to transport students. Operators should be cautioned, however, that transporting students in other than complying school buses could result in additional liability in the event of an accident.

I hope the above information is helpful to you. If you have any further questions or need additional information, you may contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

Enclosure

cc: Larry Wort Donald J. McNamara Ref:571 d:4/10/95

ID: 14129ar2.jan

Mr. Vahan Chertavian
ArJan USA, Ltd.
210 Ironwood Lane
Fredericksburg, VA 22408

Dear Mr. Chertavian:

This responds to your letter asking three questions about the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213 to the "Safesit Car Safety Seat," which is designed for children weighing 33-80 pounds. I apologize for the delay in responding. Our answers are provided below, following each of your questions. Briefly stated, the standard applies to the seat. In addition, we do not consider the seat to be a booster seat as you suggested.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, Congress has established 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 information set forth in your letter and promotional literature.

Question 1: "Is the [Safesit] regulated under Standard 213? . . . The original intent of the seat was not to act as a booster seat but to safely rearrange shoulder and lap belts for children who have grown out of the booster seat stage."

Our standard for "child restraint systems," Standard 213, applies to "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." (S4 of Standard 213, definition of child restraint system.)

In the past, NHTSA has determined that devices that simply reposition vehicle belts for children are not child restraint systems, when the device positions just the belts and not the child to fit the belts. However, your system is designed to position the belts by way of a padded seat for the child, and thus falls within the purview of the "designed ... to restrain, seat, or position children" language of the child restraint system definition (emphasis added). Because the Safesit meets the definition of a child restraint system, it is regulated by Standard 213.

We note that this accords with the advertising literature you enclosed with your letter, which describes the Safesit as a "Car Safety Seat," and "The Ultimate Child Restraint System." Calling your device a "car safety seat" and a "child restraint system" implies that the Safesit is regulated by Standard 213 and makes it foreseeable that the restraint will be used as such.

Question 2: If Standard 213 applies, is the seat a backless child restraint system or a belt-positioning seat?

The answer is neither. Backless child restraint systems and belt-positioning seats are types of "booster seats" (S4). Standard 213 defines "backless child restraint system" as "a child restraint, other than a belt-positioning seat, that consists of a seating platform that does not extend up to provide a cushion for the child's back or head and has a structural element designed to restrain forward motion of the child's torso in a forward impact." The Safesit lacks the structural element described in the "backless child restraint" definition and thus is not a backless child restraint. A "belt-positioning" child seat is defined in S4 of the standard as:

[A] child restraint system that positions a child on a vehicle seat to improve the fit of a vehicle Type II [lap and shoulder] belt system on the child and that lacks any component, such as a belt system or a structural element, designed to restrain forward movement of the child's torso in a forward impact. (Emphasis added.)

The Safesit does not "position a child" to improve the fit of the belt system. Rather, the Safesit changes the positioning of the belts by routing the lap belt over the femurs of the child and between the legs, and by pulling the shoulder belt down off the face and neck. Because of this, the Safesit is not a belt-positioning child seat. The Safesit would be considered to be a child restraint system other than a booster seat.

Question 3: Regarding the ultimate classification of the seat, does it satisfy the requirements of Standard 213?

Under S6.1.2 of Standard 213, the Safesit would be tested in Standard 213's dynamic test while secured to the vehicle seat with only a lap belt. It appears unlikely that the seat would meet Standard 213's requirements when tested in this manner, since the seat provides no upper torso restraint for the child. Also, a child seat recommended for use by children weighing 33-80 lb. would be tested with test dummies representing a 3-year-old and a 6-year-old child. If the Safesit cannot meet the requirements of Standard 213 so tested, it cannot be certified to the standard.

We also note that the Safesit design routes the lap belt portion of a Type II belt over the child's femurs, thereby subjecting the long thigh bones of the child to potential crash forces. You should fully evaluate whether the femurs can withstand the crash forces that could be imposed on them.

I have enclosed an information sheet for your information, which briefly outlines NHTSA's standards for new manufacturers. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:213
d:6/11/97

ID: aiam3998

Dear Mr. Kroner: Thank you for your letter of March 13, 1985, concerning Federa requirements for safety belts in modified vans and their effect on state safety belt use laws. I regret the delay in our response.; According to your letter, a handicapped individual purchased a van an had the front seat removed to permit him to operate the vehicle from his wheelchair. You first inquired whether the vehicle is required to be equipped with a safety belt under Federal law.; This agency has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 *Occupant Crash Protection*, that requires the installation of occupant restraint systems in passenger cars, trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's). A copy of the standard is enclosed for your reference. Depending on its seating capacity and use, a 'van' would be classified under our regulations as a bus, truck or MPV. Regardless of that classification, the vehicle manufacturer is required to install a safety belt system for the driver's seating position. Belt systems may be required at other seating positions as well, depending upon the vehicle's classification. These requirements apply to any vehicle until its first sale to a consumer.; While our safety standards apply only to new motor vehicles, there ar some statutory restrictions on subsequent alterations. If a van were modified after its first sale to a consumer, then section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1397(a)(2)(A)) would apply. That section provides, in pertinent part:; >>>No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety....<<<; Accordingly, none of those commercial businesses could lawfully remov a safety belt installed in compliance with Standard No. 208, since such an action would 'knowingly render inoperative' that safety device. This prohibition applies only to commercial businesses, not to individuals. Vehicle owners may themselves remove a safety belt without violating Federal law. They would, however, have to comply with any State law on vehicle equipment.; Thus, in answer to your first question, a manufacturer of a van i required by Federal law to provide a safety belt system at the driver's position, and certain commercial businesses are prohibited from removing the belt.; You also requested our opinion as to whether the owner/driver of th modified van would be required to wear a safety belt under the new Illinois safety belt use law. We do not believe it would be appropriate for this agency to offer an opinion on that question, since it requires an interpretation of state law. You may wish to consult with the State Attorney General's Office or counsel for an appropriate State agency on the matter, as they are in a better position to discuss Illinois state law.; I appreciate your interest in safety belt usage and hope thi information is of assistance to you.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0419

Dear Mr. Eckhold: In the conference that was held on July 23, 1971, between For representatives and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration personnel concerning Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (memorandum dated July 29, 1971, filed in Docket 69-7), your legal counsel raised a question concerning the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's position with respect to enforcement of the standard.; The question raised was whether this agency would consider a moto vehicle not to conform to the standard if the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration tests showed noncompliance, but the manufacturer's analogous tests showed compliance, and the difference in results were due to the use of slightly different anthropomorphic test devices, with both sets of tests assumed to be run in accordance with the prescribed conditions and procedures of the standard. We agree that the question is an important one and that it may arise, because the complexity of the physical variables in crash testing with anthropomorphic devices makes it difficult if not impossible to refine the standard's specifications to the point where all relevant conditions are specified and all permissible variations eliminated.; In a case where tests conducted by the NHTSA show noncompliance with standard, and the manufacturer's tests, valid on their face, appear to give complying results, the NHTSA conducts an inquiry to determine the reason for the differing results. If, after completing such an inquiry, the NHTSA were to conclude that the difference in results was entirely due to differences in the test devices used by each, and further that the manufacturer's tests, including his test devices, were in complete conformity with the standard, then the agency would not consider that particular series of tests to be the basis for finding of noncompliance against the manufacturer.; I hope that this clarifies the matter for you. Sincerely, Charles H. Hartman, Acting Administrator

ID: garbage.crs

Mr. Richard G. Parks
Supervisor
Engineering Research Center
BTI Consultants
1937 East Broadway Road
Tempe, AZ 85282

Dear Mr. Parks:

This is in response to your letter of April 18, 1997, requesting confirmation of an interpretation that you state I gave you over the telephone on March 5, 1997 regarding the required contents of an incomplete vehicle document specified at 49 CFR 568.4, and one of the requirements for seating systems specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 207, 49 CFR 571.207.

Because your letter assumed knowledge of matters that we discussed on March 5 and because I did not recall that conversation in all particulars, I asked Coleman Sachs of my staff to contact you so that we could gain a better understanding of your request. You informed Mr. Sachs on June 3, 1997 that your company is providing consulting services for a party litigating an action involving a garbage truck rollover incident. You stated that the garbage truck was completed by a final stage manufacturer from a chassis cab furnished as an incomplete vehicle by a major truck manufacturer. You further stated that the final stage manufacturer removed the bench-style seat that was furnished with the chassis-cab and replaced it with a bucket-type seat at the driver's position. Additionally, you stated that the final stage manufacturer equipped the vehicle with a steering wheel and a complete second set of controls on the right side of the vehicle so that it could be operated from that side while picking up trash. You noted, however, that the vehicle was not equipped with a driver's seat where the auxiliary controls were located.

You have raised two questions with regard to these modifications. The first concerns the contents of the incomplete vehicle document that the chassis-cab manufacturer was required to furnish under NHTSA's certification regulations for vehicles manufactured in two or more stages at 49 CFR Part 568. Section 568.4(a)(7) of those regulations requires this document to list each standard in effect at the time of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle that applies to any of the vehicle types into which the incomplete vehicle may be appropriately manufactured. As your letter notes, section 568.4(a)(7) further requires the incomplete vehicle document to state, alternatively, after each standard listed, either (i) that the vehicle when completed will conform to the standard if no alterations are made in identified components of the incomplete vehicle, (ii) the specific conditions of final manufacture under which the manufacturer specifies that the completed vehicle will conform to the standard, or (iii) that conformity with the standard is not substantially affected by the design of the incomplete vehicle, and that the incomplete vehicle manufacturer makes no representation as to conformity with the standard.

You have asked whether the incomplete vehicle document must contain the statement specified in subparagraph (i) of section 568.4(a)(7) if a foreseeable modification of the incomplete vehicle involves moving the driver's seat. If the incomplete vehicle is equipped with a driver's seat, its manufacturer would ordinarily ensure that the driver's seat and its attachment assembly comply with FMVSS No. 207, and that the seat was installed in compliance with the standard. Assuming the manufacturer has taken these measures, the statement in subparagraph (i) of section 568.4(a)(7) would be the most appropriate of the three statements in that section to cover the vehicle's compliance with FMVSS No. 207.

That answer would not change even if the incomplete vehicle manufacturer could reasonably anticipate that the driver's seat would be replaced or that other modifications would be made to the driver's seat at a subsequent manufacturing stage, since the incomplete vehicle document should properly reflect the compliance status of the incomplete vehicle at that stage of manufacture. If the final stage manufacturer replaces the driver's seat or makes other modifications to it, before that manufacturer certifies that the vehicle complies with all applicable standards, as required under 49 CFR 567.4, it must ensure that the new or modified seat and its attachment assembly comply with FMVSS No. 207 and that the seat is installed in compliance with the standard.

Your second question is whether the final stage manufacturer was required to equip the garbage truck that is the subject of your inquiry with a driver's seat at the right-side location where auxiliary controls were installed. You note that paragraph S4.1 of FMVSS No. 207 provides that "[e]ach vehicle shall have an occupant seat for the driver." You interpret this language as requiring a seat for the driver "wherever the driver may be located," including two driver's seats if the vehicle may be operated from two separate locations.

In the one previous opportunity that we have had to address this issue, we did not interpret the requirements of paragraph S4.1 in this way. In a letter dated July 30, 1975 to Mr. Byron A. Crampton (copy enclosed), we stated that "a garbage truck that contained an auxiliary driver's position on the right side of the vehicle, with a separate set of controls" did not require a seat at the auxiliary location. The letter explains that this conclusion was reached because this office considers "the standards relating to the driver's position as relating to the normal position, and not to an auxiliary driving position." Lending suport to this interpretation is a letter to Mr. Glenn S. Park (copy enclosed), in which we stated that a "stand-up, right-hand drive position in a truck with a mounted side loader" would not be considered a designated seating position under Federal safety standards. Consistent with our past interpretation, we must disagree with your conclusion that two separate driver's seats must be installed in the vehicle you have described.

If you have any further questions about vehicle certification requirements, please call Coleman Sachs of this office at 202-366-5238. Any further questions that you may have regarding the seating system requirements of FMVSS No. 207 should be directed to Otto Matheke of this office at 202-366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:207#568
d.7/15/97

ID: aiam1825

Memorandum Subject: Meeting with TEBDA re Standard 121 From: Assistant Chief Counsel On March 18, 1975, representatives of the Department met with officer of the Truck Equipment and Body Distributors Association (TEBDA) and other industry representatives, concerning problems with compliance with Standard 121, Air Brake Systems, by companies in the business of adding axles to chassis-cabs. Present for DOT: Messrs. Stoney, Constantino, Schultz, Dyson, Herlihy. Present for TEBDA and industry: Messrs. Wendelberger, Bosbyshell, Myers, Gibson, McCullough, and Pieratt.; The basic problem presented by TEBDA was that the companies that ad 'tag' or 'pusher' axles to chassis- cabs do not have the facilities to test the vehicles for conformity to the performance requirements of Standard 121, and therefore feel they have no way to certify conformity to the standard. Representatives of a manufacturer of the axles, who were present, stated that they were prepared to make calculations concerning their axles that would indicate that when used properly, they would not take vehicles out of conformity to the standard. TEBDA requested a forgiveness period during which actual road tests would not be required.; Departmental representatives said that under NHTSA interpretations an opinions of long standing, actual road tests are not necessary to establish compliance with Standard 121 or other standards, where other reasonable means, such as engineering calculations coupled with laboratory tests, can be used to the same effect. The agency has recognized that small companies such as many of the final-stage and intermediate manufacturers represented by the TEBDA, cannot be expected to test on the same scale or by the same methods as large integrated automotive manufacturers. Supplier warranties and instructions are one of the primary means by which smaller assembliers are expected to use statutory 'due care' to see that their products conform. Therefore, the DOT representatives stated, it does not appear at this point that any changes in the standard's application were necessary to achieve what the industry representatives wanted, and the NHTSA would reiterate this position in response to requests for interpretation.; Richard B. Dyson