ID: 7405

Mr. Michael F. Hecker
Micho Industries
P.O. Box 1791
Goleta, CA 93116

Dear Mr. Hecker:

This responds to your letter of June 8, 1992 concerning how the "R-Bar" should be positioned during testing under Standard No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection. The R-BAR is a padded restraining device, and the ends of the device attach to the rear of a school bus seatback. The device folds down for the purpose of restraining the passengers seated in the next rearward seat. Your letter states that, under the test condition set forth in S6.4 of the standard, you believe that the test should be performed with the R-Bar in its most upright position. As discussed below, your understanding is incorrect.

Section S6 of Standard No. 222 sets forth a number of test conditions which apply to the requirements specified in section S5 of the standard. One of these requirements, set forth in section S6.4, reads as follows: "If adjustable, a seat back is adjusted to its most upright position." This test condition addresses seat backs which may be adjusted to different angles for the comfort of the seat occupant. Your letter raises the issue of whether this condition also addresses the position of a restraining bar which is attached to the seat back.

It is our opinion that S6.4 only addresses the position (degree of uprightness) of a seat back as a whole, and not the position of individual components that can separately be placed in different positions without affecting the degree of uprightness of the seat back. In the case of the R-Bar, the position of the R-Bar (up or down) has no effect on the degree of uprightness of the seat back. Therefore, Standard No. 222 does not expressly address the position of a device such as the R-Bar.

As a general matter, when a standard does not specify a particular test condition, there is a presumption that the requirements of the standard must be met at all such test conditions. This presumption that the standard must be met at all positions of unspecified test conditions may be rebutted if the language of the standard as a whole or its purposes indicate an intention to limit unspecified test conditions to a particular condition or conditions.

In the case of Standard No. 222, nothing in the language of the standard suggests that the test procedures is only to be performed with a device such as the R-Bar in only one particular position. Indeed, the purpose of the standard is to reduce the possibility of death or injury to school bus occupants during crashes and sudden driving maneuvers. To serve this purpose, the vehicle must be capable of meeting the requirements of Standard No. 222 with the R-Bar in any position in which it may be placed, since the R-Bar could be at any such position when the seat is occupied.

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

ref:222 d:7/14/92

ID: 7417

Mr. Tim Flagstad
220 West 14th Street
National City, CA 9l950

FAX 619-477-6249

Dear Mr. Flagstad:

This responds to your FAX of July 24, 1992, seeking clarification of our letter to you of July 20.

This matter concerns the importation of a 1981 Kenworth truck from Canada that was manufactured in that country. The truck entered pursuant to the declaration that the vehicle was manufactured to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and bore a certification label to that effect. The current owner of the truck says that it bears no U.S. certification label. Our earlier letter informed you that entry under the conformance and certification provisions was therefore erroneous, and that the truck should have been imported under the new provisions for importing nonconforming motor vehicles that became effective on the day of importation.

Your letter of July 24 states that a certification label was attached at the time of importation, and you have asked "As the Certification Label was on the truck at the time it came through Customs, how would this affect the entry status of this vehicle?"

Assuming that the truck bore a certification label, the question is whether the label certified compliance to the U.S. or Canadian Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If the manufacturer certified compliance to the Canadian standards, then my previous advice remains in effect: the entry of this truck as a vehicle conforming, and certified as conforming, to U.S. safety standards was erroneous.

If, on the other hand, the manufacturer certified compliance to the U.S. standards, the truck was properly entered.

However, it appears more likely than not that such certification as may have been affixed was to the Canadian standards. We understand that the truck lacked equipment necessary for conformance to Standard No. 121, "Air Brake Systems", and that its VIN did not consist of 17 characters. These were requirements of the U.S., but not the Canadian, Federal motor vehicle safety standards at the time the truck was manufactured.

The apparently erroneous admission by the U.S. Customs service is understandable. Canada permits certification either in the form of a "National Safety Mark" (maple leaf) or a statement of compliance with "Federal motor vehicle safety standards", the identical phrase used in U.S. certification labels. When a Canadian manufacturer employs this certification statement, a closer examination of the certification label is necessary. If GAWR and GVWR ratings are expressed in pounds, the certification is to the U.S. standards; if expressed in kilograms, the certification covers the requirements of Canada.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

cc: Ms Joan Moniz 45623 Halekou Road Kaneohe, Hawaii 96744

ref:591#115#VSA d:8/12/92

ID: 7418-2

Mr. Trevor Buttle, Project 4
Southam Drive
Kineton Road Industrial Estate
Southam, Leamington Spa,
Warwickshire, CV33 OFA England

Dear Mr. Buttle:

This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 102, Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect. You requested clarification of the standard's requirement that certain information be displayed "in view of the driver." You also asked whether the display must be permanently illuminated. Your questions are responded to below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

For vehicles with automatic transmissions, Standard No. 102 requires that identification of shift lever positions, including the positions in relation to each other and the position selected, must be displayed "in view of the driver" at specified times. See S3.1.4 through S3.1.4.4. For vehicles with manual transmissions, the standard requires that identification of the shift lever pattern of manual transmissions, except three forward speed manual transmissions having the standard "H" pattern, must be displayed "in view of the driver" at specified times. See S3.2.

You stated that you believe that the requirement for certain information to be displayed "in view of the driver" relates to the 95 percent eye range contour, hence requiring a display on or near to the "instrument binacle." You asked whether this is correct, or whether floor shift identification is sufficient.

NHTSA has previously addressed Standard No. 102's requirement that certain information be displayed "in view of the driver" in connection with a request for interpretation concerning the identification of the shift lever pattern of manual transmissions. The agency concluded that the pattern "is deemed to be `displayed in view of the driver' if part of it may be seen from the driver's normal eye position and a reasonable amount of movement of the driver allows him to gain full view of the pattern." (Letter to Daimler-Benz of North America, February 27, 1967.) Thus, the information required by Standard No. 102 to be displayed in view of the driver may be displayed on the instrument panel, floor console, or other locations, so long as these criteria are satisfied.

Your second question asked whether the information required to be displayed by Standard No. 102 must be permanently illuminated for night usage. You stated that some auto makers have made this facility switchable.

NHTSA's requirements concerning the illumination of motor vehicle controls and displays are set forth in Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. S5.3.1 of the standard requires that if a gauge is listed in column 1 of Table 2 and accompanied by the word "yes" in column 5, then the gauge and its identification must be illuminated whenever the ignition switch and/or the headlamps are activated. The last gauge listed in Table 2 is "automatic gear position," and the word "yes" appears in column 5. Therefore, automatic gear position gauges, i.e., the gauges which provide the information required by Standard No. 102 to be displayed for automatic transmission vehicles, are subject to Standard No. 101's illumination requirement.

Under S5.3.3 of Standard No. 101, an automatic gear position gauge may have levels of brightness at which the gauge and its identification are not visible. It is common, for example, for manufacturers to provide a variable light intensity control that enables the driver to turn the illumination for conventional automatic gear position gauges down to off.

It is important, however, to distinguish between turning the illumination off i.e., no illunimation, but display still visible, and adjusting the gauge itself in a way that it no longer displays the required information. As indicated above, Standard No. 102 requires that certain gear position information be displayed in view of the driver at specified times. This requirement would not be met if it were possible for the driver to adjust the automatic gear position gauge in a way that it no longer displayed the required information during the specified times. An example of this would be an electronic gauge using light emitting diodes, where the driver, while driving, could turn the electronic display down to the off level. In this instance, the gauge would not be displaying the required information.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:101#102 d:8/13/92

ID: 7434

Mr. Eugene Welker
774 Harbor Island
Clearwater, FL 34630

Dear Mr. Welker:

This responds to your letter about a mirror system designed to improve a driver's view of areas behind a motor vehicle. You explained that a 35" vertical post would be bolted near a vehicle's rear bumper. This would result in a mirror being located a few inches above the top rear window stop light and facing forward at a 45 angle. You asked whether such a device would be legal. The following discussion and the enclosed information sheet, "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment," explain your responsibility under NHTSA's regulation.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not approve, endorse, or certify motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act"), the manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Safety Act requires that these safety standards establish minimum levels of performance for vehicles or equipment. Once the performance level has been established, vehicle or equipment manufacturers are free to choose any means they wish to achieve the required level of performance.

NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish performance requirements for new vehicles in Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR 571.111, copy enclosed). Standard No. 111 establishes performance and location requirements for rearview mirrors installed in any new vehicle. This means that the vehicle manufacturer must certify that each vehicle it manufactures complies with the specified requirements. Standard No. 111 requires that passenger cars be equipped with an inside rearview mirror and a driver's side outside rearview mirror that provide the field-of-view specified in S5.1.1. A passenger's side outside rearview mirror is required in situations where the inside rearview mirror does not provide the specified field-of-view. Additional requirements for other vehicle types are set forth in S6, S7, and S8.

No provision in the Standard specifies requirements for a mirror that attaches to the vehicle's rear bumper. Accordingly, a mirror like yours would not be prohibited from being installed on any vehicle by the current requirements in Standard No. 111. Accordingly such a mirror would be permitted, but only as a supplement to the required mirrors.

In installing the mirror, one must take care to avoid obscuring the vehicle's lighting devices, including the center highmounted stop lamps (CHMSL).

Please be aware that NHTSA does not regulate vehicles while they are in use. The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Washington Blvd, Arlington, VA 22203 may be able to advise you about the laws of the individual States related to the use of equipment such as your own.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:111 d:8/7/92

ID: 7436

Mr. Peter E. Reinert
Counsel - Transaction
General Electric Company
One Plastics Avenue
Pittsfield, MA 01201

Dear Mr. Reinert:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205). Specifically, you asked about the certification and marking responsibilities of your company, General Electric (GE), and your distributors under section S6 of Standard No. 205. This interpretation is based on my understanding of the statements in your letter as well as statements made by GE's representatives Mr. Timothy Commons and Mr. Bruce Torry in a July 8, 1992 meeting with Mr. Clark Harper of this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Standards and Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff.

We understand that GE manufactures large sheets of LEXAN polycarbonate which are used in both motor vehicle and non- vehicle applications. You explained that under a contractual agreement with GE, your distributors have agreed to mark the LEXAN sheet with GE's manufacturer code mark and the symbol DOT (which you refer to as the DOT number). In other words, GE is sending LEXAN sheets without the manufacturer code mark and the symbol DOT to its distributors who then mark the sheets with this information before shipping them to their motor vehicle customers.

You asked whether shipping LEXAN sheets without the manufacturer code mark and symbol DOT to GE's distributors is consistent with GE's responsibilities as a prime glazing material manufacturer having its own DOT number. I note that Mr. Commons and Mr. Torry raised additional questions about GE's certification responsibilities under Standard No. 205. Specifically, they questioned whether GE was a manufacturer of raw material rather than a prime glazing material manufacturer; and if GE were not a prime glazing material manufacturer, whether each of GE's distributors would be required to mark the LEXAN sheets with its own DOT number rather than GE's number. Your company's questions are addressed below.

Standard No. 205 specifies performance requirements for glazing for use in motor vehicles. Section S6 of Standard No. 205 establishes marking and certification requirements for manufacturers and distributors of glazing materials. Different marking and certification requirements apply depending upon whether an entity is a prime glazing material manufacturer or a manufacturer that cuts sections of glazing material to which Standard No. 205 applies. Further distinction in certification requirements for prime manufacturers depends on whether the glazing is designed for use in a specific motor vehicle or camper, or whether the glazing is designed to be cut into components for use in motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. None of the marking and certification requirements would apply to manufacturers of raw materials.

Section S6.1 defines a "prime glazing material manufacturer" as "one who fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material." If an entity performs any one of these operations, it must comply with the marking and certification requirements set forth in S6.1 through S6.3 of Standard No. 205.

Before addressing the question posed in your letter, I will respond to your representatives' question concerning whether GE might be a manufacturer of a raw material and thus not be subject to Standard No. 205's marking and certification requirements. In support of this view, they stated that distributors frequently undertake what they termed significant fabricating operations (e.g., drilling, routing, and polishing the glazing) beyond merely cutting the glazing, and thus in such situations should be considered the "prime glazing material manufacturer."

Notwithstanding your representatives' contentions, we consider GE to be the prime glazing material manufacturer in the situation at hand. GE's activities involve a fundamental manufacturing operation that constitutes fabrication of glazing. In contrast, the distributor's operations, though arguably more extensive than mere cutting, constitute relatively minor finishing operations to an item of glazing that has been fabricated by another company. Since GE fabricates the glazing, it is the prime glazing material manufacturer under S6.1. This determination renders moot your representatives' follow-up question about the distributor's marking responsibilities if GE were not a prime glazing material manufacturer.

I will now summarize the marking and certification requirements that apply to GE, as a prime glazing material manufacturer, and to its distributors. S6.1 requires every prime glazing material manufacturer to mark all glazing materials it manufactures with the following information in accordance with section 6 of the American National Standard (ANS) Z26: (1) the words "American National Standard" or the characters "AS," (2) a number identifying the item of glazing, (3) a model number assigned by the manufacturer that identifies the type of construction of the glazing material, and (4) the manufacturer's distinctive designation or trademark.

In addition to the information required by S6.1, if an item of glazing material is designed to be used in a specific motor vehicle, then S6.2 requires each prime glazing material manufacturer to certify such an item of glazing with the symbol "DOT" and a manufacturer's code mark assigned by this agency. The purpose of requiring the manufacturer's code mark is to help NHTSA identify the actual manufacturer of the glazing material for the purpose of defect and noncompliance recall campaigns. Section S6.3 requires each prime glazing material manufacturer to certify compliance with Standard No. 205 for each piece of glazing designed to be cut into components for use in motor vehicles pursuant to the requirements of section 114 of the Safety Act. Under section 114, certification of an item of glazing "may be in the form of a label or tag on such item or on the outside of a container in which such item is delivered."

Sections S6.4 and S6.5 set forth requirements that apply to each manufacturer or distributor who cuts a section of glazing material to which Standard No. 205 applies for use in a motor vehicle or camper. Section S6.4 requires the manufacturer or distributor to mark that material in accordance with section 6 of ANS Z26. Section S6.5 requires the manufacturer or distributor to certify that its product complies with Standard No. 205, pursuant to section 114.

You asked whether shipping LEXAN sheets without GE's manufacturer code mark and the symbol DOT to GE's distributors is consistent with GE's responsibilities as a prime glazing material manufacturer that has its own DOT number. Under the above requirements, the only type of glazing that a prime glazing material manufacturer is required to mark with its manufacturer code mark and the symbol "DOT" is glazing designed as a component of a specific motor vehicle or camper. GE, as a prime glazing material manufacturer, is not required to mark glazing with the symbol "DOT" and its manufacturer's code mark if such glazing is not designed as a component of a specific motor vehicle or camper.

As for sheets of glazing that a manufacturer or distributor will cut into components for motor vehicles, GE and GE's distributors may contractually agree to have the distributor mark the LEXAN sheets and glazing cut from such sheets with GE's manufacturer code mark. However, there is no requirement for either GE or its distributors to so mark the glazing.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure

Ref: 205 d:9/4/92

ID: 7437

Mr. M. K. Chaudhari
Director ARAI
The Automotive Research Association of India
Survey No. 102
Vetal Hill
Off Paud Road, Kothrud
Pune-411 004 India

Dear Mr. Chaudhari:

This responds to your letter requesting the testing procedure for and test results of vehicles equipped with anti-skid brake systems. These systems are also referred to as anti-lock brake systems. You also requested the addresses of equipment manufacturers that produce anti-lock brake systems. I am pleased to have this opportunity to provide you information about this topic.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act"), it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards issued by this agency. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with the applicable standards. I am enclosing a copy of an information sheet entitled, "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment," which explains a manufacturer's responsibility under NHTSA's regulation.

I am also enclosing a copy of the two safety standards issued by NHTSA that apply to brake systems: Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.105) and Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.121). These standards are intended to insure the safe braking performance of vehicles under normal and emergency conditions. Vehicle manufacturers are required to certify that vehicles they manufacture comply with these performance-oriented standards. Nothing in these standards currently specifies that vehicles be equipped with an anti- lock device. For your information, the agency is considering proposing additional requirements that might require medium and heavy duty vehicles to be equipped with anti-lock brake systems. A copy of that notice is enclosed (57 FR 24212, June 8, 1992). In addition, the agency has issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking in which the agency is considering whether to harmonize its passenger car brake standard with international standards. (56 FR 30528, July 3, 1991). A copy of that notice is also enclosed.

With respect to your request for test results related to anti-lock brake performance, I am enclosing the agency's most recent report on this topic. It is entitled "Improved Brake Systems for Commercial Motor Vehicles."

With respect to your inquiry requesting the addresses of equipment manufacturers, the agency is unable to provide such information. The following associations may be able to help you obtain this information:

Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association 7430 Second Avenue, Suite 300, Detroit, MI 48202 (Telephone No. 313-872-4311, Fax No. 313-872-5400)

Brake System Parts Manufacturers Council 300 Sylvan Avenue P.O. Box 1638 Englewood Cliffs, N.J. 07632-0638 (Tel. No. 201-569-8500, Fax No. 569-0159)

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. The fax number is (202) 366- 3820.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures

Ref:105#121 d:8/12/92

ID: 7439

Ms. Mary C. Andrews
2510 Glengyle Drive
Vienna, VA 22181

Dear Ms. Andrews:

This responds to your letter asking whether a plastic cone design you are developing would comply with the Department of Transportation's requirements applicable to warning devices. You explained that your device is a 24 inch high inflatable cone with reflector strips on the sides. The cone would be weighted down with sand in an enclosed bottom. Based on the information provided in your letter, it appears that your device would not comply with certain provisions of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 125, Warning Devices (49 CFR 571.125, copy enclosed).

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., the "Safety Act") gives this agency the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 125. The Safety Act provides that no person shall "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or item of equipment complies with the applicable standard. (See 15 U.S.C 1397(a)(1)(A).) NHTSA has no authority under the Safety Act to approve, certify, or otherwise endorse any commercial product. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a self-certification process under which each manufacturer is required to certify that each of its products meets all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. (See 15 U.S.C. 1403.) I am enclosing a general information sheet explaining NHTSA's regulations.

Standard No. 125 applies to devices, without self-contained energy sources, that are designed to be carried in motor vehicles and used to warn approaching traffic of the presence of a stopped vehicle, except for devices designed to be permanently affixed to the vehicle. See section S3. Your planned product appears to be such a device and would therefore need to comply with all of the requirements of Standard No. 125. As the enclosed copy of the standard indicates, your device would have to comply with specific requirements including those for minimum size, durability, material, container, labeling, configuration, color, reflectivity, luminance, and stability. From the information provided in your letter, it appears that your device would not comply with several of these requirements.

Please be aware that violations of Safety Act provisions are punishable by civil fines of up to $1,000 for each violation of a safety standard. In addition, the Act requires manufacturers to remedy their products if they fail to comply with any applicable safety standards.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure

Ref: 125 U:\NCC20\INTERP\125\7439.mls cc: NCC-01 Subj/Chron, NCC-20 (MLS), NRM-01, NEF-01 Interp.: Std. 125, Redbook (2)

ID: 7449

Mr. Kenneth Lenz
HME Incorporated
1950 Byron Center Avenue
Wyoming, MI 49509

Dear Mr. Lenz:

This responds to your letter asking whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components, requires door locks on fire trucks. Safety Standard No. 206, which applies to all passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks, does not exclude fire trucks. Thus, fire trucks are covered by the standard's general requirement that "components on any side door leading directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations shall conform to this standard." [ S4]

Standard No. 206 does not apply, however, to certain types of doors which are often found on fire trucks. Since your letter did not provide any details about the design of the specific doors to which you refer, I am unable to determine whether any of the doors on those fire trucks would be subject to Standard No. 206's requirements. For your information, I have enclosed two letters from this office which discuss the applicability of Standard No. 206 to specific doors on fire trucks in more detail. The two letters are an August 13, 1980 letter to Mr. Steenbock and a February 11, 1988 letter to Ms. Salvio. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has not adopted any amendments to Standard No. 206 that affect the accuracy of the information contained in these letters. I have also enclosed a current copy of Standard No. 206.

You also asked about the possibility of obtaining an exemption from Standard No. 206 for fire trucks. The only provisions for exemptions from safety standards are those set forth in 49 CFR 555, a copy of which is enclosed. As you will note, the circumstances under which exemptions may be granted and the scope of such exemptions are very limited.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact David Elias of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:206 d:7/22/92

ID: 7450

Mr. L.J. Sharman
314 Lakeside Drive South
Surfside Beach, SC 29575

Dear Mr. Sharman:

This responds to your letter requesting information about whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued any regulations addressing the retention of records regarding compliance testing results. Your question arises in the context of the testing procedures set forth in Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. (49 CFR 571.302).

As explained below, the agency makes available all of its compliance test results through its Technical Reference Division. However, the agency has no such requirements for manufacturers or other persons to keep records concerning any test results. Nevertheless, a manufacturer would be well advised to retain such records in case its motor vehicle or item of equipment did not comply with an applicable safety standard.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., the "Safety Act") gives this agency the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Each of the agency's safety standards specifies the test conditions that this agency will use to assure whether the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested is in compliance with the safety standard. NHTSA follows the established test procedures and conditions when conducting its compliance testing. The results of NHTSA's compliance tests are always recorded and made available to the public in the agency's Technical Reference Division.

However, the Safety Act does not require a manufacturer to test its products only in the manner specified in the relevant safety standard, or even to test the products at all. A manufacturer may choose any means of certifying that its products comply with the requirements of the safety standards. If the manufacturer chooses to conduct testing, there is no requirement that the manufacturer retain those results.

However, if the agency testing shows that an apparent noncompliance exists with a vehicle or item of equipment, the manufacturer is asked to show the basis for its certification that the vehicle or equipment complies with the relevant safety standard or standards. If, in fact, there is a noncompliance, the manufacturer is subject to civil penalties under the Safety Act unless it can establish that it exercised "due care" in the design and manufacture of the product and in the checks (through actual testing, computer simulation, engineering analyses, or other means) to ensure compliance, but nevertheless did not have reason to know that the vehicle or item of equipment did not in fact comply with the safety standards. Given the potential for civil penalties, it is in the manufacturer's best interests to retain its testing records in case it must establish due care. (See 15 U.S.C. 1397(b)).

I note that the agency has issued a regulation addressing recordkeeping, 49 CFR Part 576, Record Retention, which establishes requirements for the retention by motor vehicle manufacturers of complaints, reports, and other records concerning motor vehicle malfunctions. However, nothing in this provision requires retention of information generated during compliance testing.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's regulations, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Ref:VSA d:8/12/92

ID: 7468-2

Ms. R. Marie McFadden
Cable Car Concepts Inc.
P.O. Box 6500
Deltona, FL 32728

Dear Ms. McFadden:

This responds to your June 23, 1992 letter requesting information on Federal regulations concerning safety belts and seating in vehicles manufactured by your company. These vehicles are the "Mini Trolley," the "Road Train," and the "Trolley Tram." You indicated that these vehicles can be used on the highway and are motorized, licensed vehicles.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. Our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., Safety Act), to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

NHTSA's safety standards specify different requirements for different types of motor vehicles. Therefore, in order to answer your specific questions, it is necessary to determine how each of your vehicles is classified under our regulations. NHTSA defines a "bus" as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons." Your literature indicates that the "Mini Trolley" has a passenger capacity of 18, and that the power unit of the "Trolley Tram" has a passenger capacity of 22. Therefore, both of these vehicles would be considered a "bus" for the purpose of Federal regulations.

NHTSA defines a "truck" as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment." The power unit of the "Road Train" has seating capacity for only one passenger, and the primary use appears to be to draw the coaches. Therefore, it appears that this vehicle is a "truck" for the purpose of Federal regulations.

NHTSA defines a "trailer" as "a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle." The coaches for the "Road Train" and the "Trolley Tram" would be considered trailers for the purpose of Federal regulations.

Your specific questions and the answers to each follow. You asked us to answer these questions for vehicles manufactured both before and after September 1, 1991.

1. Our small unit has a GVW of 12,300, we understand that we need seat belts for the driver only, this small unit is an eighteen passenger. Our largest is a thirty-two passenger unit with a GVW of 17,000 lbs.

The safety belt installation requirements are set forth in Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. This standard specifies requirements based on vehicle type and seating position within the vehicle. Different requirements also apply depending on the GVWR of the vehicle. The discussion which follows is limited to vehicles with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds.

As explained below, buses such as the "Mini Trolley" and the power unit of the "Trolley Tram" are required to have, at a minimum, a lap belt at the driver's position; trucks such as the power unit of the "Road Train" are required to have, at a minimum, a lap belt at every designated seating position; and trailers such as the coaches for the "Road Train" and the "Trolley Tram" are not required to have any type of safety belt at any seating position.

The requirements for buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds are contained in S4.4 of Standard No. 208. Section S4.4.1 gives vehicle manufacturers a choice of two options for providing occupant crash protection in buses manufactured on or after January 1, 1972 and before September 1, 1990. Option 1, set forth in S4.4.1.1, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide an automatic protection system at the driver's seating position that meets the frontal and lateral crash protection and rollover requirements. Option 2, set forth in S4.4.1.2 requires vehicle manufacturers to install a lap or lap/shoulder belt at the driver's seating position. Buses manufactured on or after September 1, 1990 are allowed the same two options, however, S4.4.2.2 specifies that, if a manufacturer chooses to comply with Option 2, the lap belt or pelvic portion of the lap/shoulder belt must have either an emergency locking retractor (ELR) or an automatic locking retractor (ALR).

The requirements for trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more are contained in section S4.3 of Standard No. 208. Section 4.3.1 gives vehicle manufacturers a choice of two options for providing occupant crash protection in trucks manufactured on or after January 1, 1972 and before September 1, 1990. Option 1, set forth in S4.3.1.1, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide an automatic protection system at all seating positions that meets the frontal and lateral crash protection and rollover requirements. Option 2, set forth in S4.3.1.2 requires vehicle manufacturers to install lap or lap/shoulder belts at every seating position. Trucks manufactured on or after September 1, 1990 are allowed the same two options, however, S4.3.2 specifies that, if a manufacturer chooses to comply with Option 2, the lap belt or pelvic portion of a lap/shoulder belt must have either an ELR or an ALR.

Standard No. 208 does not apply to trailers. Therefore, the coaches for the "Road Train" and the "Trolley Tram" are not required to have safety belts.

2. As you can see on our Tram specs we do have oak seats, is there a ruling on this at all.

The seating requirements are contained in Standard No. 207, Seating Systems. This standard includes strength requirements for all "occupant seats" in passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks, and for the driver's seats in buses, except that the requirements do not apply to side-facing seats. Therefore, the driver's seat in the "Mini Trolley" and the power unit of the "Trolley Tram," and all "occupant seats" in the power unit of the "Road Train" must meet the requirements of Standard No. 207. The standard does not specify that seats must be made of a particular material; therefore, oak seats are permitted if they comply with the standard.

As with Standard No. 208, Standard No. 207 does not apply to trailers. Therefore, the seats in the coaches for the "Road Train" and the "Trolley Tram" are not subject to the requirements of Standard No. 207.

We have one seat on some of our vehicles that we refer to as a jump seat it is located in front of the entrance door, this seats two people and faces the driver. Would the same ruling apply to this seat as for the other passenger seats.

As stated above, Standard No. 207 applies only to the driver's seat in buses such as the "Mini Trolley" or the power unit of the "Trolley Tram." If the jump seat is in the power unit of the "Road Train," and if it is not a side- facing seat, it must meet the requirements of Standard No. 207 if it is an "occupant seat" as defined in that standard.

Section S3 of Standard No. 207 defines an "occupant seat" as "a seat that provides at least one designated seating position." A "designated seating position" is defined at 49 CFR 571.3 as

any plain view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats.

Your letter does not contain enough information to determine whether your seat would be considered an auxiliary seating position. If it is, it is not subject to Standard No. 207.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:207#208 d:8/20/92