ID: 10195-2

Mr. Jerry Miller
Director of Operations
Associated Leasing Handicapable Vans
12117 Riverwood Drive
Burnsville, MN 55337

Dear Mr. Miller:

This responds to your letter of May 31, 1994, requesting confirmation that "there are no rules or regulations on wheelchair tie downs for vehicles other than school buses."

You are correct that Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, which includes requirements for wheelchair securement devices, applies only to school buses. However, while none of the safety standards apply to wheelchair securement devices for vehicles other than wheelchairs, the manufacturer of the product is subject to federal requirements concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety (49 U.S.C. 30118-30121). The agency does not determine the existence of defects except in the context of a defect proceeding.

You should also be aware that the Department of Transportation has issued a final rule implementing the transportation provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act. This final rule includes requirements for wheelchair securement devices installed in vehicles required to be accessible by this rule. A copy of the final rule is enclosed with this letter. If you have further questions on these regulations, please contact Mr. Irv Chor of the Federal Transit Administration. Mr. Chor's card is attached to the final rule.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:222 d:8/19/95

ID: 101xx

Mr. Lance Tunick
1919 Mt. Zion Drive
Golden, CO 80401

FAX 303-279-9339

Dear Mr. Tunick:

This responds to your letter of July 18, 1994, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, with respect to whether the headlamp system you describe complies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

The system is comprised of two headlamps. In each lamp, the lower beam will be provided by a gas discharge unit and the upper beam by either one European H-1 unit, or by the H-1 together with the gas discharge unit (or, alternatively, by two gas discharge units). Both lamp units would be sealed in a "box" so that they could not be replaced by the vehicle owner. The "box" would also contain a third light source, mounted outboard of the lower beam gas discharge unit, to be used for purposes other than headlighting.

As you note, this assemblage is an "integral beam headlamp" as defined by S4 of Standard No. 108 because it contains light sources that are neither sealed beam nor replaceable. Thus, it must conform with the requirements of S7.4 Integral Beam Headlighting System. You have noted that the lamp, in fact, will "comply with S7.4(a)(2) and the photometric requirements of either (a)(2)(i) or (a)(2)(ii)", which apply to two- lamp integral beam headlighting systems.

In your view, the lamp meets the requirement of Table IV that the lower beams be mounted "as far apart as practicable" because the configuration of the car body does not permit mounting the gas discharge unit any farther outboard. Further, the lamp "would be in conformity with S7.4(b) as the lamp would have 2 light sources and the lower beam would be provided by the most outboard light source [of those regulated

by Standard No. 108] . . . and the upper beam would be provided by either the most inboard light source or both the gas discharge" and H-1 light sources.

We concur in your conclusion that this system is permissible under Standard No. 108.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d:7/28/94

ID: 10204

Albert W. Unrath, Sr., President
Albert W. Unrath, Inc.
P.O. Box 631
Colmar, PA 18915

Dear Mr. Unrath:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of how NHTSA's regulations apply to your company's plans to refurbish used vehicles. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that after refurbishing, the vehicles will have lower gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWRs). You wish to know whether you could add a label showing the lower GVWR to the vehicles' original certification label (which you refer to as the "original Vin Plate").

As explained below, NHTSA does not require the supplementary label on a refurbished--and not newly manufactured--used vehicle. We would, however, encourage you to add the label on the refurbished vehicles, since the label would provide important safety information to the vehicle operator. On the other hand, the modifications you make to the vehicle could be so extensive that the resulting vehicle is considered "new" under our regulations. If the vehicle is a new vehicle, you must certify the vehicle as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's), and include on your certification label the new GVWR of the vehicle.

Based on the information you provided, the vehicles you are refurbishing are "trucks" under section 571.3 of our regulations. Section 571.3 defines a "truck" as a motor vehicle with motive power "designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment." You provided two photographs of the vehicles after they have been refurbished. Your photographs show the refurbished vehicles as carrying 4' x 8' "Advanced Warning Flashing Arrow" signs on flat beds. Since your vehicles are designed for transporting property or special purpose equipment, the vehicles are "trucks" under 571.3.

You describe your refurbishing process in your letter. You state that you will take a used truck with a GVWR of 45,000 or 80,000 pounds (lbs.), "scrap" the body, and check remaining truck parts such as the subframe, brakes, steering system, axles, and

suspension. You will repair and replace those parts, as needed. Next, you will clean and paint the frame and running gear, and add a new support frame and "attenuator mounting hardware with braces." After the vehicle is refurbished, its GVWR will be approximately 25,500 lbs.

As a general rule, NHTSA has no requirements for "used" vehicles. Whether a vehicle is considered new or used depends on the origin of its parts. For example, we regard an assemblage of a new body on a chassis of a vehicle that was previously registered for use on the public roads to be a "used" vehicle and therefore not subject to the FMVSS's. When a modified chassis is being used in the refurbishment, NHTSA has a regulation (49 CFR section 571.7(e)) for determining when the modifications to the used chassis are so extensive that the resulting vehicle will be considered new for the purposes of the FMVSS's. Section 571.7(e) states:

When a new cab is used in the assembly of a truck, the truck will be considered newly manufactured . . ., unless the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) (as a minimum) of the assembled vehicle are not new, and at least two of these components were taken from the same vehicle. It does not appear that you plan to add a new engine, transmission, or drive axle to each refurbished truck. If you leave the requisite components specified in section 571.7(e) in place from the previous vehicle, we would consider the vehicle you produce to be a used vehicle. However, please keep in mind that you would be subject to the provisions of 49 U.S.C. section 30122(b), which provides that:

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . .

This means that the refurbished truck must continue to meet the FMVSS's that it met before the modification, such as those for braking, lighting and safety belt systems. Any violation of this "make inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation.

You ask whether, after refurbishing the used truck, your company may affix additional labels with a new GVWR to reflect the lower GVWR. Since NHTSA generally does not regulate used vehicles, we do not require or prohibit the addition of a supplementary GVWR label. However, we would encourage you to add the supplementary GVWR label to the vehicle.

As you note, in an interpretation letter of May 24, 1993 to the American Association of Blood Banks (AABB), NHTSA recognized that certain modifications that might be made to a used vehicle (e.g., adding or deleting an axle) could make the originally assigned GVWR inappropriate for the vehicle as modified. In the letter to the AABA, NHTSA stated that although it is not required by our regulations, we believe it would be appropriate in these situations to add a label to the vehicle which indicates the appropriate loaded weight of the modified vehicle. Similarly, in your case, since the GVWR of the refurbished trucks would be much lower than that indicated on the certification label, we believe it would be appropriate for your company to add a label to the trucks which indicates the appropriate loaded weight of the refurbished truck.

As noted at the beginning of this letter, it is possible that your modifications could result in a "new" vehicle. You indicate that, if needed, you could replace the vehicle's subframe, brakes, steering system, axles, suspension, and/or support frame. If you were to remove all the drive components from the frame of the original vehicle and add new drive components or rebuilt drive components from different vehicles, the vehicle would be a new vehicle and would have to be certified by you as complying with all applicable FMVSS's in effect on the date of the remanufacture of the new vehicle.

You also asked that NHTSA "approve" your proposed operations. NHTSA has no authority to "approve" refurbishing operations. Under our regulations, manufacturers of new vehicles "self-certify" that their vehicles comply with all applicable FMVSS's. Likewise, businesses refurbishing used vehicles must assure themselves that the resulting vehicle continues to meet the FMVSS's that it met before the modification. NHTSA can examine the refurbisher's determination in the context of an enforcement proceeding.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:567 d:10/11/94

ID: 10206

Mr. Gene Byrd
Anderson Technology
17 Ross St.
Jamestown, NY 14702-0759

Dear Mr. Byrd:

This responds to your letter to former Chief Counsel Pansel

Enclosure ref:222 d:8/19/95 losure ref: 222 NCC-20:MVersailles:mar:62992:7/28/94 U:\NCC20\INTERP\222\10195.MLV cc: NCC-10, Subj/Chron, NCC-20 MV, NRM-01, NEF-01 Interps: 222, Redbook (2)stions 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,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:VSA d:8/18/94 makes inoperative" compliance with any safety standard.

NHTSA is concerned that the "Belly Safe" could be used in a way that adversely affects crash forces on the occupant. Standard No. 208 includes requirements that have the effect of ensuring that the lap and shoulder belts distribute the crash forces to the occupant's skeletal structure, a part of the body that can better withstand the forces. For example, Standard No. 208 requires the shoulder belt and the lap belt to intersect off of the abdominal area. The "Belly Safe" places an object between the legs of the occupant. This change in the distribution of crash forces could have serious safety implications for the wearer of the belt.

There are other concerns about the "Belly Safe." The realigning of the lap belt through the "Belly Safe" could increase the amount of webbing in the belt system. If the straps which attach around the back of the seat or the Velcro holding the lap belt are unable to withstand the forces of a crash, there would be excessive slack in the lap belt. Slack in the lap belt would increase the risk of the occupant sliding under the lap belt (submarining) and slack in the belt system generally introduces higher crash forces, both of which would increase the risk of injury. In addition, should a non-pregnant occupant use the "Belly Safe," the device could do more harm than good.

I have enclosed a consumer information sheet titled "Pregnancy: Protecting Your Unborn Child in a Car." This sheet explains that the lap belt should be placed low, across the hips and over the upper thighs. If a woman takes the time to adjust the belt as recommended (an action also needed to install the "Belly Safe"), NHTSA is unaware of any need for a device to keep the lap belt in this position.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:208 d:7/14/94 he address provided in the enclosed information shted; however, the substantive requirements described in the sheet have not changed.

ID: 1021

Mr. Michael A. Norman
2820 Nine Mile Road
Richmond, VA 23233

Dear Mr. Norman:

This responds to your letter of June 30, 1995, with respect to the "Auto Truckers Courtesy Light." This is the device that you discussed with Taylor Vinson of this Office on June 29. You have applied to the Virginia Department of Transportation for evaluation of this product who will make a decision on July 13. We assume that you wish to know whether the product is permitted by Federal regulations.

As we understand it from the description, photos, and drawings that you enclosed, the device consists of a large sign with a "thank you" message that would be illuminated by two small amber lamps in the upper corners. The device could be mounted on the rear underride guard of a large truck or trailer, or on the rear cargo door. The purpose of the device is to enable the driver of the vehicle on which it is installed to show appreciation "to a trailing motorist for blinking his lights to assist the truck operator in changing back to the right hand lane after passing." In addition "[t]he device operates with audio and visual indicators with three second automatic delay cut off."

You told Taylor Vinson that the intent is to sell this product in the aftermarket. As Mr. Vinson indicated, the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on motor vehicle lighting (Standard No. 108) contains no specifications applicable to the manufacture and sale in the aftermarket of supplementary motor vehicle lighting equipment such as this. This means that the device may be manufactured and sold without violating any Federal law administered by the Department of Transportation.

There remains, however, the issue of whether its installation and use would violate a Federal proscription that forbids manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and motor vehicle repair businesses from "making inoperative" motor vehicle lighting equipment installed in accordance with Standard No. 108 (or equipment installed that was necessary to comply with any

other Federal motor vehicle safety standard). With respect to supplementary lighting equipment, we generally ask ourselves whether the "message" sent by required lighting equipment is likely to be made less effective if it and the device are used simultaneously. The effectiveness of the required lighting equipment is especially important with respect to oversized vehicles such as large trucks and trailers. With respect to your device, we foresee the possibility that the driver of a large vehicle on which it is installed might have to apply the brakes at the moment that the two small amber lamps are activated that illuminate the "thank you" sign, thus impairing the effectiveness of the stop lamps (we would probably reach a different conclusion if the message was related to the brake lamps, i.e., if it said "Stop"). Therefore, the installation of your device by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business would appear to violate the Federal proscription against making safety equipment inoperative.

The proscription, however, does not apply to the owner of the vehicle which, if a company, could have the device installed in its own private repair facilities, or if the owner is a person, by the owner. This means that the individual States in which the device is to be used may accept or reject the device as they determine to be appropriate. We are unable to advise you how the laws of the individual States would apply to the device, and suggest that you write for an opinion to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

If you have further questions, Taylor Vinson will be pleased to assist you (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d:7/13/95

ID: 10227

Mr. Richard J. Quigley
5886-b Fernflat Road
Aptos, CA 95003

Dear Mr. Quigley:

This responds to your request for reconsideration of our July 15, 1994 interpretation letter on Standard No. 218, Motorcycle helmets. In that letter, we stated that a drawing you provided would not meet the requirement in S5.6.1(e) of the standard that motorcycle helmets be labeled with the symbol DOT. You enclosed a new drawing and ask whether it meets S5.6.1(e). The answer is no.

The new version of the drawing consists of three figures that you believe constitute the symbol "DOT." Your new drawing continues to incorporate a corporate logo in lieu of the letter "O." As explained in our July 15, 1994 letter, because the symbol DOT constitutes the manufacturer's certification that the helmet conforms to Standard No. 218, there must be no ambiguity in the symbol. Using the corporate logo in lieu of the letter "O" introduces ambiguity as to whether the manufacturer has certified the helmet. Thus, the new version of the drawing you provided does not meet S5.6.1(e) of Standard No. 218.

I hope this answers your question.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:218 d:8/18/94

ID: 10228

The Honorable Bart Stupak
U.S. House of Representatives
902 Ludington St.
Escanaba, MI 49829

Dear Mr. Stupak:

Thank you for your letter enclosing correspondence from your constituent, Mr. Kurt B. Ries, concerning our requirements for school vehicles. Your letter was referred to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for reply, since NHTSA regulates the manufacture of all vehicles, including vans and school buses.

Mr. Ries, Director of the Northeast Michigan Consortium, asks for relief from what he believes is a new Federal regulation. The Northeast Michigan Consortium uses a number of 15-passenger vans to transport students to employment training programs and jobs. Mr. Ries believes the new Federal regulation will require all vehicles transporting students, including vans, to be replaced with "mini-school buses," which he believes is economically unfeasible.

I appreciate this opportunity to address your constituent's concerns. As explained below, the new regulation that Mr. Ries is concerned about is not a Federal regulation, but one that Michigan is considering adopting as State law.

NHTSA has issued safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles, including school buses. Under our regulations, a "school bus" is a vehicle carrying 11 or more persons, that is sold to transport children to school or school-related events. Congress has directed NHTSA to require school bus manufacturers to meet safety standards on aspects of school bus safety, including floor strength, seating systems, and crashworthiness. Each seller of a new school bus must ensure that the vehicle is certified as meeting these safety standards.

While NHTSA regulates the manufacture and sale of new school buses, this agency does not regulate the use of vehicles. Thus, we do not have a present or pending requirement that would require Mr. Ries to cease using his vans for school transportation.

The requirements for the use of school buses and other vehicles are matters for each State to decide. We understand from Mr. Roger Lynas, the State Pupil Transportation Director in Michigan, that Michigan is considering changing its school bus definition to make it more similar to NHTSA's. Such an amendment could affect what vehicles can be used for school transportation under State law. For more information about Michigan's proposed amendment, we suggest Mr. Ries contact Mr. Lynas at (517) 373-4013.

NHTSA does not require States to permit only the use of "school buses" when buses are used for school transportation. However, we support State decisions to do so. NHTSA provides recommendations for the States on various operational aspects of school bus and pupil transportation safety programs, in the form of Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, "Pupil Transportation Safety," copy enclosed. Since school buses have special safety features that conventional buses do not have, such as padded, high-backed seats, protected fuel tanks, and warning lights and stop arms, they are the safest means to transport school children. Guideline 17 recommends that all buses regularly used for student transportation meet our school bus safety standards. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Carol Stroebel Director of Intergovernmental Affairs

Enclosure ref:571 d:9/26/95

ID: 10243

Mr. Roger Matoba
5665 White Mountain Ct.
Martinez, CA 94553

Dear Mr. Matoba:

This responds to your letter, addressed to Patricia Breslin, asking us to review our safety belt requirements for rear outboard seating positions in passenger vans. You stated that manufacturers interpret Safety Standard No. 208 to require the installation of shoulder belts for these seating positions. You expressed concern that this requirement creates a safety hazard for vehicles with a side aisle to rear seating locations. According to your letter, passenger seats next to the side aisle have shoulder belts that cross the aisle. You believe that these shoulder belts would block the exit of more rearward passengers in an emergency, and suggested that we eliminate this requirement.

Your understanding of Standard No. 208's requirements is not entirely correct. It is correct that the standard requires (S4.2.4) lap/shoulder safety belts in all forward-facing "rear outboard designated seating positions" in new passenger vans with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. However, under S4.2.4.1, the term "rear outboard designated seating position" excludes, for purposes of this requirement, any seating positions that are "adjacent to a walkway located between the seat and the side of the vehicle, which walkway is designed to allow access to more rearward seating positions." Therefore, the seating positions that you are concerned about are not required to have shoulder safety belts. The standard instead only requires manufacturers to provide lap safety belts for these seating positions.

NHTSA decided not to require shoulder safety belts at these seating positions because the agency recognized that the belts might obstruct an aisle designed to give access to rear seating positions. Manufacturers are, however, permitted to provide lap/shoulder belts if they choose to do so.

With respect to your concerns about the safety of shoulder safety belts which cross an aisle, I note that such belts do not in fact prevent rearward passengers from exiting the vehicle. Such passengers may exit the vehicle by going under or over the belt. They may also move the belt aside by spooling out the webbing, or even unlatch the belt. Indeed, any difficulty that rearward occupants face in exiting the vehicle is much smaller than that faced by rear seat occupants in a two-door car or the occupants of middle seats. In considering the safety of such belts, it is also important to consider the extra protection offered by the shoulder belt to the occupant who wears it. We believe the vehicle manufacturer is in the best position to balance, for its vehicles, the benefits associated with this extra protection against any difficulties related to occupants entering and exiting the vehicle.

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

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:208 d:12/28/94

ID: 10253

Mr. Bruce Monnie
Senior Designer
Advanced Design Associates
Tigard, OR 97223

Dear Mr. Monnie:

This responds to your letter asking about Federal requirements for a product you have developed to improve the securement of child safety seats. You stated that the product is a one-piece steel bracket which "is installed on the seatbelt of the vehicle, to prevent slippage between the lap and shoulder portions of the seatbelt and to tighten up slack in the lap portion of the seatbelt." You indicated that the product would be installed on a temporary basis and that it would be sold in the "aftermarket" to persons owning child restraint systems. You request an interpretation of whether Standards No. 209, 213, or any other standard would apply to your device.

By way of background information, 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. The agency does not approve, certify or endorse any vehicles or equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that would apply to your product. It appears from your description of the product that it would be a type of device that we call a "locking clip." A locking clip is a bracket into which a vehicle's lap and shoulder belt webbing is threaded. A locking clip tightens the webbing around a child safety seat and prevents the safety seat from moving easily. We have no safety standard that applies to locking clips. Standard 209 sets forth requirements for new seat belt assemblies. However, since your product would not be installed as part of a new seat belt assembly, the standard would not apply. Standard 213 is our standard for child restraints. It 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). Since your device would not itself restrain, seat or position a child, it would not be a child restraint system. Therefore, Standard No. 213 would not apply to your product.

While no FMVSS applies to your product, your device is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. ''30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those and other manufacturer responsibilities. In the event you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety- related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In addition, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to 49 U.S.C. section 30122, which prohibits them from installing the device if the installation "makes inoperative" compliance with any safety standard. It appears unlikely from the nature of your product that it would be placed in vehicles by commercial businesses instead of child restraint owners. However, if your product were to be installed by persons in those categories, they must ensure that its installation does not compromise the safety protection provided by a child restraint system or the vehicle belt system. The prohibition of section 30122 does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment.

Please note that we have a concern about the possible misuse of your device. Our safety standards require specific levels of performance for a vehicle's safety belt system. For example, Standard 208 has requirements that ensure that a vehicle's lap and shoulder belts are installed to distribute the crash forces over the skeletal structure of the occupant. The safety standards also have requirements for belts to automatically lock and retract. Your device attaches to the belt system, and will stay in place until the consumer removes it. Since it attaches to the belt system, it could affect the ability of the system to protect an adult occupant, or a child restrained without a child safety seat. We suggest that you provide clear instructions to the consumer to remove the device from the belt webbing when the belt system is used without a child restraint system.

In closing, I note for your information that NHTSA published a final rule in October 1993 requiring the safety belts in new motor vehicles to be capable of tightly securing child safety seats, without the necessity of the user's attaching any device, such as a locking clip, to the seat belt webbing, retractor, or any other part of the vehicle. The rule applies to vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1995. I have enclosed a copy of the rule.

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

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:208#209#213 d:10/27/94 Please note that the "National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act" and the "Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act" to which the information sheet refers have recently been recodified in Title 49 of the United States Code. This means that the citations used in the information sheet are outdated; however, the substantive requirements described in the sheet have not changed.

ID: 10266

Ms. Jane L. Dawson
Specifications Engineer
Thomas Built Buses, Inc.
P.O. Box 2450
1408 Courtesy Road
High Point, NC 27251

Dear Ms. Dawson:

This responds to your letter of August 8, 1994, regarding the test procedure in Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. I apologize for the delay in our response. Your letter asks whether a seat manufacturer can certify that a passenger seat complies with Standard No. 210 with the seat attached to a 1/2" steel plate test fixture rather than with the seat attached to a typical 14 gauge school bus floor. If the seat manufacturer can certify using 1/2" steel plate, your letter also asks whether the final stage school bus manufacturer must retest using a typical 14 gauge school bus floor to certify that the vehicle complies with Standard No. 210.

By way of background information, each of this agency's safety standards specifies the test conditions and procedures that this agency will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration precisely follows each of the specified test procedures and conditions when conducting its compliance testing. However, as your letter recognizes, manufacturers are not required to test their products only in the manner specified in the relevant safety standard, or even to test the product at all, as their basis for certifying that the product complies with all relevant standards. A manufacturer may choose any means of evaluating its products to determine whether the vehicle or equipment will comply with the safety standards when tested by the agency according to the procedures specified in the standard.

Section S2 of Standard No. 210 states that the standard applies to "passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses." The standard does not apply to seats as items of

equipment. Therefore, it is the vehicle manufacturer rather than the seat manufacturer that is required to certify compliance with the standard. More specifically, the vehicle manufacturer must certify that the vehicle, with the seat installed, complies with Standard No. 210. Of course, one of the bases for the vehicle manufacturer's certification may be test results and other information provided by the seat manufacturer.

If the agency testing shows that an apparent noncompliance exists in 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 unless it can establish that it exercised "reasonable care" in the design and manufacture of the product (through actual testing, computer simulation, engineering analysis, 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 (49 U.S.C. 30112(b)(2)(A)).

Standard No. 210 includes strength requirements for seat belt anchorages. The test procedure requires the specified force to be applied through body blocks at specified angles and for specified periods of time. As you state in your letter, the procedure allows the agency to replace the seat belt webbing with "material whose breaking strength is equal to or greater than the breaking strength of the seat belt assembly." If substitute material is used, the test procedure requires the material to "duplicate the geometry, at the initiation of the test, of the attachment of the originally installed seat belt assembly." This provision was included to ensure that the material was strong enough to pass the load to the anchorage during the test and, therefore, that the strength of the test anchorage rather than the seat belt was tested.

Your letter asks whether a seat manufacturer may base its certification on a test performed with the seat attached to a 1/2" steel plate test fixture rather than with the seat attached to a typical 14 gauge school bus floor. This, in effect, is a request for a determination of whether a vehicle manufacturer's reliance on the fact that the seat belt anchorages did not fail when a 1/2" steel plate test fixture is used would constitute "reasonable care" in assuring that the completed vehicle complied with the standard. This agency has long said that it is unable to judge what efforts would constitute "reasonable care" in advance of the actual circumstances in which a noncompliance occurs. What constitutes "reasonable care" in a particular case depends on all relevant facts, including such things as the limitations of current technology, the availability of test equipment, the size of the manufacturer, and, above all, the diligence exercised by the manufacturer. However, I would like to say that attachment of a seat or anchorage to stronger material (whether 1/2" steel plate or some other material) than the material used in the construction of the vehicle in which it will actually be installed would not appear to provide a manufacturer with information on whether or not the anchorage, when attached to the vehicle structure, will withstand the specified loads.

You should also note that, while the exercise of "reasonable care" may relieve a manufacturer of liability for civil penalties in connection with the manufacture and sale of noncomplying vehicles, it does not relieve a manufacturer of the responsibility to notify purchasers of the noncompliance and remedy the noncompliance without charge to the purchasers, if either the manufacturer or this agency determines that vehicles do not comply with all applicable safety standards.

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,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#210 d:2/2/95