Dr. Barry D. Faguy
Comite DAction Politique Motorcycliste
C.P. 49 007, Place Versailles
Montreal, Quebec, H1N 3T6
Canada

Dear Dr. Faguy:

This responds to your letter seeking information about the labeling requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets (49 CFR 571.218). Your letter correctly notes that section S5.6.1 of Standard No. 218 requires that motorcycle helmets be permanently labeled with a "DOT" mark as the manufacturers certification that the helmet complies with Standard No. 218. You indicate that Quebec courts interpreting Quebec law have held that the "DOT" certification mark must be accompanied by a reference to "FMVSS 218" in order for a helmet worn by a rider to comply with Quebecs helmet law. Your letter further states that an example of such a decision is enclosed for our information. However, the decision you discuss was not in the letter we received. You then ask us to state without "any possible ambiguity" whether S5.6 (e) is intended to require that the legend "FMVSS 218" appear on the exterior of a helmet as evidence that the helmet has been certified as complying with Standard No. 218. You also ask if the legend "FMVSS218" must appear on the DOT label or any other label on the inside or outside of a helmet. Finally, you ask how a law enforcement officer can, through a visual inspection, determine if a motorcycle helmet complies with Standard No. 218.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority under Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code, to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment, including motorcycle helmets. This statute requires each person manufacturing, selling, or offering for sale any new vehicle, or item of equipment, covered by an FMVSS, to ensure that the new vehicle or equipment item is certified as meeting all applicable FMVSSs. These provisions apply to products manufactured, sold, or offered for sale in the United States. We express no view as to what may be required under the laws of Canada or any of its provinces.

The "DOT" certification mark and other required labels provide important information regarding the helmet, including the fact that the manufacturer has certified that the helmet meets Standard No. 218. Section S5.6.1 of the Standard requires that each helmet be permanently and legibly labeled with certain warnings, identifying information, size, and the DOT certification mark. Our agency requires permanent marking of these items because we believe this information is needed for the life of the helmet. However, S5.6.1 does not require that any label contain the legend "FMVSS218" or "FMVSS 218." Furthermore, Standard No. 218 does not require that a compliant helmet be marked or labeled, either on the outside or the inside, with the legend "FMVSS218" or "FMVSS-218."

You also ask how a law enforcement officer can determine if a motorcycle helmet complies with Standard No. 218 by visual inspection. Whether a law enforcement official's inspection of a helmet is sufficient to justify either the detention of an individual or the issuance of a summons is a matter of state, or in your case, provincial law. As such, this office cannot comment on whether such an action by law enforcement official is in compliance with the laws of Quebec. Similarly, this office cannot render an opinion regarding either the laws of the Province of Quebec or the application of those laws by any court. Accordingly, we are unable to provide any comments on the propriety of the court decisions discussed in your letter or the requirements of Quebecs laws.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some more information on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Otto Matheke of my staff at this address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

cc:     Dr. Barry D. Faguy

189 Hymus Blvd. Suite #600
Point Claire, Quebec
Canada, H9R-1E9

ref:218
d.5/27/03

Mr. Don Weidman
Standards & Regulatory Affairs Manager
Grote Industries, LLC
2600 Lanier Drive
Madison, IN 47250

Re; Number of Identification Lamps

Dear Mr. Weidman:

This is in reply to your letter of August 20, 2002, asking "how many lamps can be installed as identification lamps on a vehicle . . . and still be in compliance with Standard No. 108."

You related that a customer wishes to have a five-lamp array of lamps rather than the cluster of three identification lamps specified in Standard No. 108. It is your opinion that these additional lamps are not allowed because they would detract from the purpose of the three-lamp array to identify a large vehicle in the roadway.

We confirm your interpretation. Late in 1973, we were asked by Darrell Gambill of Crane Carrie Company whether a system of four identification lamps would be permissible.I enclose a copy of our response stating that only the three-lamp system specified by Standard No. 108 is permissible.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:10
d.10/18/02

Mr. Agus The
Amsafe Commercial Products
240-C North 48^th Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85043

>

Dear Mr. The:

This is in response to your letter asking whether the Locktec child restraint buckle release meets the "two or more finger" requirement of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 209, Seat belt assemblies, as incorporated into FMVSS No. 213, Child restraint systems. As explained below, the two-finger standard is a width requirement, which is not satisfied simply by the use of two fingers in actuating the buckle release.

S5.4.3.5(c) of FMVSS No. 213 requires any buckle in a child restraint system to "[m]eet the requirements of S4.3(d)(2) of FMVSS No. 209, except that the minimum surface area for child restraint buckles designed for push button application shall be 0.6 square inch [387 mm²]." You state in your letter that: "The Locktec buckle has [a sliding mechanism for release] and not a push button or a lever application." Since your buckle release is not designed for push button application, the 0.6 square inch minimum surface area requirement in S5.4.3.5(c) does not apply.

S4.3(d)(2) of Standard No. 209 reads:

A buckle designed for pushbutton application of buckle release force shall have a minimum area of 452 mm with a minimum linear dimension of 10 mm for applying the release force, or a buckle designed for lever application of buckle release force shall permit the insertion of a cylinder 10 mm in diameter and 38 mm in length to at least the midpoint of the cylinder along the cylinder's entire length in the actuation portion of the buckle release. A buckle having other design for release shall have adequate access for two or more fingers to actuate release.(Emphasis added.)

Because your buckle release is designed for slide application rather than push button or lever application, your buckle release falls under the "other design for release" category.

Under the last sentence of S4.3(d)(2), your buckle must have adequate access for two or more fingers to actuate the release. In the photos you provided of the release being actuated, one finger is in the slide action release button and an additional finger is on the buckle base opposite of the sliding mechanism. The placement of the finger on the base merely provides support to the buckle while the release is actuated. Only one finger is accessing the slide action release button.

FMVSS No. 209 requires that a slide action release button be large enough to be accessed by a minimum of two fingers, placed side-by-side. While there is no clear indication of what is meant by "two fingers" in terms of a minimum width, the two-finger requirement of FMVSS No. 209 was included in FMVSS No. 213 to ensure that child restraint buckles are easy to operate.(See, 50 Federal Register 33722.)The buckle release mechanism must be sufficiently large enough to reduce the force to surface ratio required to actuate release. The need to conveniently unbuckle a child restraint system (CRS) is of particular importance in emergency situations when there is a need to quickly remove a child from a CRS.

The release mechanism on your buckle does not accommodate two fingers of a majority of adults. The width of the index finger of a small, 5^th percentile adult female at the knuckle nearest the hand is approximately 16 mm, and the width of the index finger of a 50^th percentile male at the same position is approximately 21 mm. [1] Given the normal reduction in finger width at the tip as opposed to the knuckle nearest the hand and approximating the combined width of the index and middle finger, "two or more fingers" for a 5^th percentile female is approximately 28 mm. The contactable surface for actuating the release on the Locktec buckle is less than 25 mm. As such, the vast majority of adults would be unable to place two fingers side-by-side to actuate the Locktec buckle.

We recognize that there is some ambiguity in the two-finger specification and that a more objective criteria, specifying a minimum linear width would be appropriate. We plan to address this requirement in future rulemaking. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Chris Calamita of this office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:213
d.4/25/03

Mr. Robert Babcock
Manager, Corporate Affairs
Hyundai America Technical Center, Inc.,
5075 Venture Drive
Ann Arbor, MI 48108

Dear Mr. Babcock:

This responds to your request asking whether a driver and passenger safety belt reminder system under development by Hyundai violates any Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Hyundai system, as described, is not prohibited by any such standards.

According to your letter, the Hyundai system consists of a driver seat system that activates a visual reminder that remains lit whenever the ignition is turned to the "ON" position if the safety belt is not fastened and an audible alert that is activated one minute after the ignition is turned on. Both alerts cease once the safety belt is fastened. The passenger seat safety belt reminder system consists of a visible alert that activates whenever the ignition is in the "ON" position, the air bag occupant sensor system detects the presence of an occupant in the passenger seat, and the safety belt is unfastened. The visible alert turns off once the safety belt is fastened after the ignition has been turned on for 6 seconds. This 6-second activation is the result of the air bag system self-check protocol and, consequently, is unrelated to safety belt use. In your letter you note that such self-check systems are commonly used by vehicle manufacturers for other telltales or alerts.

The only safety standard that could conceivably prohibit the Hyundai system is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection (FMVSS No. 208). S7.3 of that standard requires the driver's seating position be equipped with a safety belt warning system that activates, under specified circumstances, a continuous or intermittent audible signal for a period of "not less than 4 seconds and not more than 8 seconds," and a continuous or flashing warning light for not less than 60 seconds after the ignition switch is turned on if the safety belt is not buckled. The system described in your letter meets these criteria. A manufacturer may, at its option, reduce the period of the visual warning to 4 to 8 seconds if it is activated even when the safety belt is buckled.

The provision in the standard establishing a maximum of 8 seconds for the audible signal reflects a statutory requirement imposed by Congress in response to public resistance to safety belt interlock systems. See House report 93-1452, pp.44-45. 49 U.S.C. 30124 provides, in relevant part, that a motor vehicle safety standard "may not require or allow a manufacturer to comply with the standard by...using...a buzzer designed to indicate a safety belt is not in use, except a buzzer that operates only during the 8-second period after the ignition is turned to the 'start' or 'on' position."

While the statute prohibits the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) from requiring, or specifying as a compliance option, an audible safety belt warning that sounds outside of the specified 8-second period, it does not prohibit vehicle manufacturers from placing such systems in their vehicles. However, given FMVSS No. 208's requirement that the required safety belt warning be no longer than 8 seconds, a vehicle manufacturer wishing to provide a voluntary audible signal must provide some means of differentiating the voluntarily-provided signal from the required signal. This is necessary so NHTSA can verify that the system installed to meet FMVSS No. 208 is compliant. One way to differentiate between the two signals is a clearly distinguishable lapse in time between the two signals. The Hyundai system, as described, only activates once the ignition has been turned to the "ON" position for 60 seconds and the driver safety belt remains unfastened. This time lapse is sufficiently long to make the second audible signal clearly distinguishable from the initial, required 8-second signal. Accordingly, the additional driver seat belt reminder system is permitted under the standard.

FMVSS No. 208 does not regulate passenger safety belt reminder systems at all. Accordingly, there is no prohibition against the system you have described for that seating position. We generally would be concerned about a system that remained activated long after the safety belt was fastened. However, we believe that a total visual alert time of 6 seconds after the ignition is turned "ON" even when the safety belt is fastened is unlikely to distract or annoy the vehicle occupant.

I hope this information addresses your concerns. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Rebecca MacPherson of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:208
d.5/19/04

Mr. John K. Stipancich
Evenflo Company, Inc.
707 Crossroads Court
Vandalia, OH 45377

Dear Mr. Stipancich:

This is in response to your October 29, 2002, letter requesting clarification of the registration provisions under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. You ask if Evenflo may provide information to consumers allowing for registration of their child restraints through the Internet, in addition to providing the post card required under S5.8 of FMVSS No. 213. You state that a majority of registration cards are not returned and of those that are many are received incomplete, or become illegible while in transit. As explained below, your company may not add any information concerning Internet registration to the required registration form, but you may provide supplemental information that explains how to register via the Internet.

FMVSS No. 213 establishes an owner registration program for child restraint systems. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) implemented the program to improve the effectiveness of manufacturer campaigns to recall child restraints that contain a safety-related defect or that fail to conform to FMVSS No. 213. By increasing the number of identified child restraint purchasers, the program increases the manufacturers ability to inform owners of restraints about defects or noncompliances in those restraints.

S5.8 of FMVSS No. 213 requires child restraint manufacturers to provide a registration form attached to each child restraint. S5.8(b)(2) requires that the registration form conform in size, content and format to forms depicted in the standard. (See figures 9a and 9b of the standard.) Each form must include a detachable postage-paid postcard, which provides a space for the consumer to record his or her name and address, and must be preprinted with the restraints model name or number and its date of manufacture. Under S5.8 no other information is permitted to appear on the postcard, except for information that distinguishes a particular restraint from another restraint system. ^[1]

We have previously determined that a child restraint manufacturer may include a supplemental form that encourages electronic registration, subject to certain considerations. See our April 19, 2001, letter to Mr. Rosenbaum which permitted the attachment of a supplemental form to the child restraint along with the required registration card. As stated in that letter, we have permitted this when:

1. the registration card required by S5.8 does not bear any information or writing beyond that required to be on the form, and
2. the additional information is presented in a manner not likely to confuse consumers about the purpose of the required form or to obscure the importance of owner registration.

The agency is discussing possible amendments to accommodate electronic registration of child restraint systems. We will keep the information you provided in mind while we consider the possibility of rulemaking on this subject.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:213
d.1/3/03

Mr. Charles W. Lawhon
C & S Trailer World
4111 E. Loop 820 S.
Fort Worth, TX 76119

Dear Mr. Lawhon:

This letter is in response to your phone call and a subsequent letter asking about the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to a trailer with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) at or above 10,000 pounds that was manufactured in 1987. Specifically, you asked about any regulations applicable to such a trailer equipped with an "electrical braking system." It is our understanding that this electrical system actuates brakes via an electro magnet and does not utilize air or hydraulics. You also asked us to elaborate on any other safety requirements for "manufactured utility or gooseneck trailers."

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. As a preliminary matter, we note that 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 all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) issued by this agency. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with those standards.

There is only one Federal motor vehicle safety standard that regulates the braking performance of trailers.[1] That standard, FMVSS No. 121 (49 CFR 571.121) establishes performance requirements for braking systems on vehicles equipped with air brakes. The standard applies to new trucks, buses, and trailers. A trailer manufactured in 1987 would have been subject to the standard as it existed at that time. An air brake system is defined in paragraph S4 of the Standard as follows:

Air brake system means a system that uses air as a medium for transmitting pressure or force from the driver control to the service brake, but does not include a system that uses compressed air or vacuum only to assist the driver in applying muscular force to hydraulic or mechanical components.

Based on your correspondence, it is our understanding that the trailer in question uses electricity to actuate or control its brakes. Accordingly, the trailer you described is not subject to the requirements of Standard No. 121.

In addition to Standard No. 121, Standard Nos. 106 and 116 are also applicable to trailers manufactured in 1987 and today. Standard No. 106 regulates brake hoses and Standard No. 116 regulates brake fluids. Again, it is our understanding that the trailer in question was equipped with an electrical braking system. Therefore, Standard No. 106 and Standard No. 116 do not apply to that vehicle, because the system does not contain brake fluid or brake hoses.

In you letter you state: "there were no safety regulations in regards to trailers with straight electrical brakes or any other safety devices in 1987." This statement is not correct. There are several safety standards that applied to all trailers manufactured in 1987. Specifically, Standard No. 108 regulates certain lamps, reflective devices and associated equipment installed on trailers. The specific requirements under this standard depend on the size of the trailer, which you have not provided. Standard No. 119 applies to new pneumatic tires installed on trailers manufactured after 1948. Standard No. 120 applies to tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars, including trailers.

In sum, there was no Federal motor vehicle safety standard applicable to electrical braking systems installed on trailers manufactured in 1987. However, several other safety standards were applicable to trailers manufactured in 1987. For your convenience, I have enclosed a package of information for trailer manufacturers, published by our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. This information is also available on the web at: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/maninfo/.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:121
d.2/28/03

Janice Eret, Program Specialist
Nebraska Department of Education
301 Centennial Mall South
P.O. Box 94987
Lincoln, NB 68509-4987

Dear Ms. Eret:

This responds to your March 26, 2003, letter to Dorothy Nakama of my staff requesting our views about proposed changes to the Nebraska Department of Educations pupil transportation rules that would create a multi-function activity bus classification that your State would permit to be used to transport pupils on school activity trips. In essence, the multi-function activity bus is a school bus without the school bus stop arm and the rear flashing lamps. You ask if the proposed changes would be permitted under the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSAs) regulations.

As you know, NHTSA is considering creating a new school bus vehicle subcategory that can be sold for school activity purposes. On November 5, 2002, (67 FR 67373) NHTSA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish a new school bus subcategory, the Multifunction School Activity Bus (MFSAB). As proposed, an MFSAB would be a school bus with a gross vehicle weight rating of 6,804 kilograms (15,000 pounds) or less that meets all school bus Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs), except for those requiring the stop arm and the flashing lights of a school bus. If NHTSA issues a final rule establishing the MFSAB subcategory, school bus manufacturers and dealers will be permitted to sell new MFSABs to schools and school districts for activity purposes.

At present, school buses must have the stop arm required by FMVSS No. 131 and the rear flashing lamps required by FMVSS No. 108. Because multi-function activity buses would not have the stop arms and flashing lights, they could not be certified as meeting all school bus FMVSSs and thus cannot be sold to transport pupils to or from school or on school activities.

If NHTSA makes the changes proposed by the November 2002 NPRM, then Nebraskas change to its regulation that permits the sale of the activity buses for school activity trips would be permitted. The agency is presently reviewing the comments responding to the NPRM and anticipates issuing a decision shortly.

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

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman

Chief Counsel
ref:VSA#571.3
d.5/21/03

Robert L. Douglas
Director of Product Integrity
IC Corporation
751 South Harkrider
Conway, AR 72034

Dear Mr. Douglas:

This responds to your October 30, 2002 request for an interpretation of whether seven specified parts in a school bus are excluded from the definition of "body panel joints" as set forth in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength. At a meeting of October 24, 2002 with agency staff, you provided samples of sections of some parts.

Standard No. 221 Requirements

Standard No. 221 requires, among other things, that each body panel joint, when tested in accordance with the procedure of S6, shall hold the body panel to the member to which it is joined when subjected to a force of 60 percent of the tensile strength of the weakest joined body panel determined pursuant to S6.2 (S5.1). Standard No. 221 defines "body panel joint" as:

the area of contact or close proximity between the edges of a body panel and another body component, including but not limited to floor panels, and body panels made of composite materials such as plastic or plywood, excluding trim and decorative parts which do not contribute to the strength of the bus body, members such as rub rails which are entirely outside of body panels, ventilation panels, components provided for functional purposes, and engine access covers.

S5.2.1 of the standard excludes the following body panel joints from the requirements of S5.1:

1. Any interior maintenance access panel or joint which lies forward of the passenger compartment.
2. Any interior maintenance access panel within the passenger compartment that does not exceed 305 mm when measured across any two points diametrically on opposite sides of the opening.
3. Trim and decorative parts which do not contribute to the strength of the joint, support members such as rub rails which are entirely outside of body panels, doors and windows, ventilation panels, and engine access covers.

Your Questions

1. Floor Covering

In your letter, you state that "metal trim parts" are used to cover the seams created where the rubber floor mat on the aisle meets the other sections of the school bus floor. You informed us that the metal trim part keeps the school bus floor even. You provided a physical sample of the metal trim part that appears to be made of aluminum and measures 25 millimeters (one inch) in width.

We agree that this part is "trim" which "do[es] not contribute to the strength of the bus body."Thus, it is not a "body panel joint" within the meaning of Standard No. 221.

2. Heater Hose Cover

You also described a metal cover for the heater hose supply and return that is positioned between the bus floor mat and the inside of the school bus wall. ^[1] The cover protects the rubber hose from damage and in the event of hose failure, protects passengers from being injured by scalding from the hot water or steam escaping from the hose.

We agree that the cover is a "component provided for functional purposes" because of its potential use to shield against hot water or steam escaping from the hose. Thus, it is not a "body panel joint."

3. Cove Molding

You state that your company has installed steel cove molding inside the school bus at the wall-to-floor joint. Used to cover any gaps between the edge of the floor mat and the sidewall of the bus, the cove molding is presently secured to the floor with screws and does not attach to the wall.In the October 24, 2002 meeting, you stated that the purpose of the steel cove molding is to prevent schoolchildren from tampering with (by inserting pencils, fingers, etc.) the gaps created where the school bus wall meets the floor. You assert that the cove molding does not contribute to the strength of the joint.

We agree that the cove molding is a trim part and does not contribute to the strength of the bus body. Thus, it is not a "body panel joint."

4. Plastic Light Bar Above the Passenger Window

You provided the following description:

Above the passenger windows, we are proposing to replace the steel light bars with plastic light bars. The interior roof liner panel behind these light bars extends down to the structure just above the passenger windows and is attached at all joints meeting the joint strength requirements of FMVSS 221. The liner will have small openings to provide wire routing to windows and doors. The plastic light bar will cover the wiring and the small openings. It will be retained by snapping behind the window flange on the lower edge and secured with screws to the interior roof liner on the top edge. The joints and ends of this light bar will be covered with formed plastic parts that will blend into the roof liner or other parts of the body interior, and will be secured with screws. We consider these trim parts compliant to FMVSS 221 and are included in S5.2.1(b).

The interior roof liner panel is a structural joint that must meet the 60 percent joint strength requirement because it "extends down to the structure just above the passenger windows and is attached at all joints meeting the joint strength requirement of FMVSS 221." As such, the interior roof liner panel forms part of the integral inner shell and appears to be a weight bearing structure.

You state that the plastic light bar will be placed in front of the interior roof liner panel (so that the light bar faces the passenger compartment). The light bar will be retained by "snapping behind the window flange on the lower edge and secured with screws to the interior roof liner on the top edge." Because of the way that the plastic light bar will be placed, it does not appear to be a weight bearing structure. Given this, we conclude that the plastic light bar is trim or a decorative part and not load bearing. ^[2] Thus, the plastic light bar does not have to meet the 60 percent joint strength requirement.

5. Parts Mostly Forward of the Passenger Compartment

S5.2 of Standard No. 221 excludes from the tensile test requirement any joint that lies forward of the passenger compartment. "Passenger compartment" is defined in S4 as:

space within the school bus interior that is between a vertical transverse plane located 762 mm in front of the forwardmost passenger seating reference point and including a vertical transverse plane tangent to the rear interior wall of the bus at the vehicle centerline.

You have three interior parts that you state are partly forward of the passenger compartment.

Item No. One Interior Liner and Roof Lightbar Above the Drivers Side Window

Your question pertains to an interior body panel ("roof interior liner") that is just above the drivers window. It attaches to a steel trim part ("light bar") which covers a gap between the interior liner and the header of the window to the side of the driver. Some portion of the joint formed by the roof interior liner and the light bar falls within the "passenger compartment," while another portion is forward of the passenger compartment. You state your belief that is acceptable to meet the 60 percent joint strength requirement only for that portion extending into the passenger compartment.

Our answer is the portion of the joint that is within the passenger compartment must meet the 60 percent joint strength requirement of S5.1. Stated differently, the entire joint is not excluded from S5.1 merely because a portion of it lies outside of the passenger compartment. A related question you raise is whether the portion of the joint that is forward of the passenger compartment is excluded from the requirement. The answer is yes. We interpret S5.2.1(a) to exclude the portion of the joint that lies forward of the passenger compartment.

Item No. Two Interior Liner Above the Entrance Door

Your next question is similar to the question above for item one. You describe a joint formed by the interior liner and a "motor structure" used with an optional electric door control. You state that the portion of the joint that is within the passenger compartment will meet the 60 percent joint strength requirement. Your question asks whether the portion of the joint that extends forward of the passenger compartment is excluded from the requirement. The answer is yes. We interpret S5.2.1(a) to exclude the portion of the joint forward of the passenger compartment. However, you are correct that the portion of the joint that lies within the passenger compartment must meet S5.1.

Item No. Three Interior Plastic Trim Box Over Entrance Door

You write that above the entrance door, your company installs a plastic trim box to cover the openings and door-operating devices. This box has a plastic "door" that opens in order to service the controls and/or the motor. The box could intrude about 7 inches into the passenger compartment. You state your belief that the mounting of this plastic trim box does not have to meet the 60 percent joint strength requirement.

We agree that the part is excluded. The plastic trim box extends from the roof interior liner at what appears to be a 90 degree angle. As such, it does not appear to be a weight bearing structure or to be part of the integral inner shell of the school bus. Moreover, you inform us that the plastic trim box serves to cover air and electric door controls. For these reasons, we determine that the interior plastic trim box over the entrance door is "trim" that does not contribute to the strength of the roof interior liner, and thus is not a "body panel joint" that must meet S5.1 of Standard No. 221.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:221
d.12/23/02

Dick Keller, Product Development Manager
Bruno Independent Living Aids
1780 Executive Drive
P.O. Box 84
Oconomowoc, WI 53066

Dear Mr. Keller:

In a letter dated November 6, 2002, you asked us seven questions regarding compliance with 49 CFR 595.7(e)(5). This section sets forth certain disclosure requirements related to vehicle modifications specifically made for a person with a disability. Among the requirements set forth in the section is a statement of the load carrying capacity of the vehicle if it has been reduced by more than 100 kilograms (220 pounds).

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers a statute requiring that motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States or imported into the United States be manufactured so as to reduce the likelihood of motor vehicle crashes and of deaths and injuries when crashes do occur. That statute is the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 ("Vehicle Safety Act") (recodified at 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq.).

One of the agency's most important functions under that Act is to issue and enforce the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs). These standards specify safety performance requirements for motor vehicles and/or items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicles must assure compliance with all applicable safety standards and permanently apply a label to each vehicle certifying that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSSs.

The Vehicle Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment that is in compliance with any applicable federal motor vehicle safety standard. NHTSA may exempt a person or business from the prohibition if it decides that an exemption is consistent with motor vehicle safety and the Vehicle Safety Act.

On February 27, 2001, NHTSA published a final rule setting forth a limited exemption from the make inoperative prohibition for businesses or individuals who modify vehicles for persons with disabilities (66 Federal Register 12638; Docket No. NHTSA-01-8667). This exemption is codified in 49 CFR Part 595, subpart C. Only portions of some Federal motor vehicle safety standards are covered by the exemption.

In adopting Part 595, NHTSA recognized that the individual for whom the modifications were made may not realize that the vehicle, as modified, may no longer meet all applicable FMVSS and may have a different load carrying capacity than listed in the owner's manual, on the certification label, or on a tire placard. These vehicle changes could have an effect on the overall performance of the vehicle. Accordingly, we determined that vehicle modifiers who decide to take advantage of the exemption set forth in 49 CFR Part 595 must provide the customer with certain safety information and place a permanent label on the vehicle. The language for the label is set out in 49 CFR 595.7(d), and a detailed breakdown of the required information is contained in 49 CFR 595.7(e). Among other things, vehicle modifiers must inform the purchaser if the vehicle's load carrying capacity is reduced by 100 kilograms (220 pounds) or more. The vehicle modifier may choose to include or exclude the weight of a wheelchair when determining how much the load carrying capacity has been reduced. However, the modifier is required to tell the owner of the vehicle whether the weight of the wheelchair has been included when determining the reduced load carrying capacity and when specifying what available load capacity remains.

As discussed in the February 2001 final rule, the vehicle modifications contemplated by 49 CFR 595, subpart C are limited to modifications made for a specific customer. Accordingly, the modifier may wish to ask the customer for the weight of any wheelchair that they expect the vehicle to transport.

You have asked seven questions about the meaning of the reduced load carrying capacity disclosure requirement of Part 595. Your questions and our answers follow:

1. "If a personal motor vehicle has a class II or III towing hitch receiver and an exterior platform hoist is attached to the vehicle by that receiver, is that considered a vehicle modification when performed by a business?"

The answer to your question depends on whether the platform is readily attachable to the vehicle. If the platform is readily attachable to the hitch, it will not be considered a motor vehicle modification. If, however, the platform is not readily attachable, it would be considered a modification. In sum, whether a platform attached to a class II or III towing hitch would be considered a modification will depend on the method and difficulty of attachment.

2. "Is it a modification if it can be installed without tools, such as using a hitch pin?"

A precise answer to this question depends on the nature of the object attached to a vehicle. As a general matter, however, an object attached without the use of tools would not be a modification. For example, if a platform is secured (without the use of any tools) to a towing hitch by use of a hitch pin, such platform, being readily removable, would not be a modification.

3. "Is the tongue weight rating of the motor vehicle considered part of the load carrying capacity?"

The term "tongue weight rating of the motor vehicle" is not defined or regulated by NHTSA. Nor does the agency require vehicle manufacturers to establish or disclose their trailer towing capabilities. Accordingly, while many manufacturers choose to recommend maximum trailer weight limits for their vehicles, others do not. The same applies to load limits or ratings for trailer hitches that may be installed on a variety of vehicles if they are used for towing. Thus, it is possible that a manufacturer has included the towing capability of a vehicle in calculating the load carrying capacity. Any questions related to the addition of a trailer to a vehicle's load carrying capacity should be directed to the vehicle manufacturer.

4. "If the combined weight of the platform and the wheelchair does not exceed the tongue weight rating of the motor vehicle, does that reduce the load carrying capacity?"

Regardless of whether the combined weight of the platform and the wheelchair exceeds the tongue weight rating of the hitch, the load carrying capacity is reduced by the portion of the weight of the wheelchair and the platform that has to be borne by the vehicle. Therefore, a modifier has to inform the purchaser if the load carrying capacity has been reduced by more than 220 pounds, regardless of the tongue weight rating of the hitch.

5. "If the platform weighs 100 pounds and has a weight capacity of 350 pounds, does that reduce the load carrying capacity of the motor vehicle by more than 220 pounds?"

As noted above, 595.7(e)(5) requires that modifiers indicate any reduction in load carrying capacity over 220 pounds and inform the purchaser whether the weight of the wheelchair has been included in the calculation. The load capacity of the platform would not be relevant in calculating the actual reduction in the vehicle load carrying capacity. In the particular situation described above, the load carrying capacity is only reduced by 100 pounds, if the weight of the wheel chair is not included.

Since the vehicle modifications are custom-made to specific vehicles based on individual customers needs, a modifier will need to have knowledge as to the weight of the wheelchair to be used in conjunction with a platform that it is installing if it includes the weight of the wheelchair when calculating reduction of the load carrying capacity. If the modifier does not know the weight of the wheelchair, it should calculate the reduction in the load carrying capacity based on the weight of the platform alone. In both instances, the modifier is required to tell the owner of the vehicle whether the weight of the wheelchair has been included when determining the reduced load carrying capacity and when specifying what available load capacity remains.

6. "If the platform weighs 100 pounds and the customers wheelchair weighs more than 120 pounds does that reduce the load carrying capacity by more than 220 pounds?"

As noted above, 595.7(e)(5) requires that modifiers indicate any reduction in load carrying capacity over 220 pounds and inform the purchaser whether the weight of the wheelchair has been included in the calculation. In the scenario described above, the modifier is informed as to the actual wheelchair weight. Where such information is available, it would be appropriate (although not required) for the modifier to include this information in calculating the reduction in the load carrying capacity. In this instance, the load carrying capacity has been decreased by more than 220 pounds, when one takes the weight of the wheelchair into account. Accordingly, the modifier should notify the purchaser of the decrease in load carrying capacity, and that the weight of the wheelchair was included in the calculation of load carrying capacity.

7. "If the platform weighs 100 pounds, and combined with additional motor vehicle modifications for the disabled person that decrease the load carrying capacity by more than 120 pounds, does that decrease the load carrying capacity by more than 220 pounds?"

In the scenario you have described, the load carrying capacity has been decreased by more than 220 pounds. The fact that specific modifications are different in nature, or even performed by different modifiers is irrelevant. Accordingly, the modifier that makes the change that causes the load carrying capacity to decrease more than 220 pounds must notify the purchaser of the decrease in load carrying capacity.

In the scenarios discussed in our answers to questions 4 thru 7, the necessity of reporting the reduction in load carrying capacity is determined by the method of attachment of the platform to the vehicle as described in our answers to questions 1 and 2 above. Please be aware that some of the modifications discussed above may present various additional problems. For example, platforms and other devices attached to the exterior of a vehicle may affect compliance with Standard No. 108, which deals with lamps and other reflective devices. Modifications that take a vehicle out of compliance with FMVSS No. 108 are not exempted under Part 595.

Enclosed please find a copy of our new brochure devoted, in part, to hitch systems. Should you require any additional information or assistance, please contact George Feygin, of my staff, (202) 366-2992 or at the address given above.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:595
d.5/8/03

Mr. Pierre Villeneuve
Girardin Minibus
Route Transcanadienne
Drummondville, Quebec J2B 6V4

Dear Mr. Villeneuve,

This is in response to your fax of November 4, 2002, requesting information on the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) Nos. 207, Seating systems, and 210, Seat belt assembly anchorages, to commercial buses. In your letter you ask if both FMVSS Nos. 207 and 210 apply to passenger seats on commercial buses. The answer to your question is that FMVSS No. 210 is applicable to passenger seats of all buses regardless of whether they are used for commercial purposes, as long as the vehicles gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) is 10,000 pounds or less. FMVSS No. 207 does not apply to passenger seats on buses that are designed for occupancy while the vehicle is in motion regardless of weight.

By way of background, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 authorizes the National Highway Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards and is certified as being in compliance.

FMVSS No. 207 applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses. (See S2.) However, S4.2 of FMVSS No. 207 establishes general performance requirements, stating that:

When tested in accordance with S5, each occupant seat, other than a side-facing seat or a passenger seat on a bus, shall withstand the following forces, in newtons ... (Emphasis added.)

Accordingly, passenger seats on buses are excluded from the general performance requirements for seats under FMVSS No. 207, and only the drivers seat of a bus must meet the general performance seat requirements under this regulation. FMVSS No. 207 also sets out requirements for restraining devices for hinged or folding seats or seat backs. (See S4.3.) But again, passenger seats in buses are excluded from this requirement.

FMVSS No. 210 also applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses. (See S2.) FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection, establishes which designated seating positions on buses require seat belt assemblies and FMVSS No. 210 establishes the standards for the belt anchorages those assemblies are required to meet. In determining whether seat belt anchorages need to be installed, S4.1.1 of FMVSS No. 210 references FMVSS No. 208 and states:

Seat belt anchorages for a Type 1 or a Type 2 seat belt assembly shall be installed for each designated seating position for which a Type 1 or a Type 2 seat belt assembly is required by Standard No. 208[.] Seat belt anchorages for a Type 2 seat belt assembly shall be installed for each designated seating position for which a Type 2 seat belt assembly is required by Standard No. 208[.]

S4.4.3.2 of FMVSS No. 208, states in pertinent part that:

[E]ach bus with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less, except a school bus, shall be equipped with an integral Type 2 seat belt assembly at the driver's designated seating position and at the front and every rear forward-facing outboard designated seating position, and with a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly at all other designated seating positions.

For buses with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds, seat belt assembly requirements only apply to the drivers designated seating position. (See FMVSS No. 208 S4.4.3.1.) Accordingly, for these vehicles the passenger seats need not meet the requirements of either FMVSS No. 207 or FMVSS No. 210.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any further questions please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-0536.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:207
d.1/16/03