ID: 10407

Mr. Larry W. Overbay
Director, Automotive and Support
Equipment Directorate
U.S. Department of the Army
U.S. Army Combat Systems Test Activity
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5059

Dear Mr. Overbay:

This responds to your letter requesting information about Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 121, Air brake systems, and NHTSA Test Procedure TP 121-02. You stated that your organization recently tested a vehicle's compliance to the emergency stopping distance requirements in FMVSS No. 121 by disconnecting the service air signal line at the rear service air relay. You further stated that this action "essentially eliminated rear braking during all stops" making the vehicle totally reliant on the front brakes for stopping. According to your letter, the vehicle manufacturer contends that the manner in which you conducted the test is invalid since it was not done in accordance with NHTSA Test Procedure TP 121-02, which specifies rapid bleeding of the vehicle's air reservoirs.

In addition to general questions about FMVSS No. 121 and the NHTSA Test Procedure, you asked whether the removal of the service air signal line (a non-manifold line which is designed to carry compressed air) from the rear air brake relay valve is considered by NHTSA to be a valid test of the emergency system requirements under the provisions in FMVSS No. 121. After providing background information that responds to your general questions about testing of motor vehicles, I will respond to your specific question about test conditions applicable to the emergency stopping requirements.

Congress has authorized NHTSA to issue FMVSSs applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. (Formerly, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which has been codified at 49 U.S.C. 30303) NHTSA, however, does not approve or endorse motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the statute establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

Each of NHTSA's safety standards specifies performance requirements for the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard.

In addition to the test conditions and procedures set forth in the FMVSSs themselves, NHTSA has provided instructions, known as "compliance test procedures," to the test facilities with which the agency enters into contracts to conduct compliance tests for the agency. The compliance test procedures are intended to provide a standardized testing and data recording format among the various contractors that perform testing on behalf of the agency, so that the test results will reflect the performance characteristics of the product being tested, not differences between various testing facilities.

The compliance test procedures must, of course, not be inconsistent with the procedures and conditions that are set forth in the relevant safety standard. However, the compliance test procedures do, on occasion, provide additional detail beyond what is set forth in the relevant FMVSS. These more detailed test procedures and conditions are requirements only for the contractor test facility in conducting tests on behalf of the agency. The test procedures are subject to change and do not always directly reflect all of the requirements of the particular standard for which they are written. The agency has generally stated that the test procedures are not intended to limit the requirements of the applicable FMVSS(s) and that in some cases the test procedures do not include all of the various FMVSS minimum performance requirements.

With this background in mind, let me respond to your specific questions. As for your first question, the requirements in FMVSS No. 121 take precedence over the TP 121-02. As noted above, TP 121-02 contains instructions issued by NHTSA to provide information to agency contractors about how to conduct compliance tests. In contrast, the law requires manufacturers to certify their vehicles to Standard No. 121.

As for your question about FMVSS No. 121's emergency stopping test requirements, those requirements are set forth in section S5.7.1. However, those requirements are not currently applicable to trucks and trailers, as the result of the U.S. Court of Appeals decision in PACCAR v. DOT, 573 F.2d 632, (9th Cir. 1978) cert. denied, 439 U.S. 862 (1978). (see S3 of 49 CFR 571.121). The agency retained the language in S5.7.1 so that those manufacturers that wish to construct their vehicles in accordance with the non-mandatory sections of the standard will have the necessary information to do so.

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

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

ref:121 d:2/17/95

ID: 10419

Mr. Roger W. Cole
Vice President, Sales
Twin Tire U.S.A., Inc.
335 Phoenixville Pike
Malvern, PA 19355

Dear Mr. Cole:

This responds to your letter of October 18, 1994, received by facsimile transmission, addressed to Walter Myers of my staff. You asked whether passenger car tires that have the DOT symbol and the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS) ratings molded on the sidewalls may legally be sold in the United States. The short answer is yes, provided that the tires in fact comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS).

By way of background information, 49 U.S.C. '30101, et seq. (hereinafter referred to as Safety Act), directs the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue FMVSSs applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment prior to the first retail sale of such vehicles or equipment. Tires are considered motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act provides at 49 U.S.C. '30112(a) that no person may manufacture, sell, offer for sale, or import into the United States any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless that vehicle or equipment complies with applicable FMVSSs and is covered by a certification to that effect issued in accordance with 49 U.S.C. '30115. The latter section provides in pertinent part that "Certification of equipment may be shown by a label or tag on the equipment . . . ." Thus, any new tire sold by Twin Tire must comply with all applicable FMVSS's, and be certified as doing so.

FMVSS No. 109, New pneumatic tires, a copy of which is enclosed for your information, specifies the minimum standards applicable to new passenger car tires. This standard specifies labeling and performance requirements applicable to passenger car tires, which include tubeless tire resistance to bead unseating, tire strength, tire endurance, and high speed performance. If the tires in question fail to comply with

Standard No. 109, the manufacturer (or importer of noncomplying tires) must notify the purchasers of the product and remedy the noncompliance without charge to the purchaser(s). Failure to comply with any FMVSS can also result in civil penalties of up to $1,000 per violation, up to a maximum of $800,000 for a series of related violations.

With regard to the situation you present, 49 U.S.C. 30112(b) provides two exceptions to the prohibition of 30112(a) against selling noncomplying equipment, such as tires. The first exception is that the prohibition does not apply to a person who had no reason to know, despite exercising reasonable care, that an item of equipment does not comply with applicable FMVSS's. The second exception is for a person who holds a certificate issued by the equipment manufacturer stating that the equipment complies with applicable FMVSS's, provided that the person does not know about the noncompliance. However, if Twin Tire were to sell the tires in question and those tires failed to comply with applicable FMVSS's, it is unlikely that Twin Tire could successfully argue that it qualifies for these exceptions, as a defense to an enforcement action for selling the noncomplying equipment.

You state in your letter that the tire manufacturer "breached their contract to manufacture these tires under the premise of US regulations." If the breach concerned the ability of the tires to conform to the requirements of the applicable FMVSS's, Twin Tire would be on notice that there is a reasonable possibility that the tires in question, while labeled with a DOT mark certifying compliance, do not in fact comply. In a situation where a seller has reason to believe the equipment it is selling might not comply with applicable FMVSS's, the seller must ascertain if the certification is bona fide before selling the item.

The following discussion relates to the "DOT" and other markings that you describe on the tires. Paragraph S4.3.1 of FMVSS No. 109 provides that:

Each tire shall be labeled with the symbol DOT in the manner specified in Part 574 of this chapter, which shall constitute a certification that the tire conforms to applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (emphasis added).

Similarly, the UTQGS, also applicable only to passenger car tires, found at 49 CFR 575.104 (copy enclosed), provides at 49 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(i)(A):

Except for a tire of a new tire line . . . , each tire shall be graded with the words, letters, symbols, and figures specified in paragraph (d)(2) of this section, permanently molded into or onto the tire sidewall . . . .

Finally, 49 CFR 574.5 requires each tire sold in the United States have a tire identification number (TIN) molded into or onto the tire sidewall by the manufacturer to facilitate recall in the event of a noncompliance or defect.

To summarize, the answer to your question is the tires in question can be sold only if they comply with all applicable FMVSSs (including Standard No. 109's labeling and performance requirements) and are so labeled in the prescribed locations with the DOT symbol, the UTQGS grades, and the TIN.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any additional questions or need further information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

ref:109#575.105 d: 12/7/94

ID: 10421nam

Mr. Robert L. Hart
Gerry Baby Products Co.
1500 E. 128th Avenue
Thornton, CO 80241

Dear Mr. Hart:

This responds to your letter concerning your company's plans for manufacturing a new type of child restraint system, model #632. The new child restraint system has a removable five-point belt system. You state that, "When the [5-point] restraint is removed, it is a booster seat according to the definition in FMVSS 213." You explain that Gerry is developing the final name for the product from among a list of nine possible names, and you want to make sure that none of the names would violate any provision of Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems."

As a general matter, Standard No. 213 has no restriction on how a child restraint system can be named. The standard defines several types of child restraint systems, such as "booster seat," "backless child restraint system," and "belt-positioning seat." (Section S4 of Standard No. 213.) These definitions are used to determine which of Standard No. 213's performance and test requirements apply to a particular seat. For example, if a child seat fits the definition of a backless child restraint system, then the seat must meet the performance and labeling requirements for backless child restraints, when tested to the test specifications set forth in the standard for backless child restraints.

Thus, the definitions in Standard No. 213 determine the applicability of particular performance and test requirements. Manufacturers are not required to name their restraints using the terminology provided in the standard. However, if a child seat fits the definition for a particular type of child seat under S4 of Standard No. 213, the seat will be evaluated to the criteria for that type of child seat, regardless of the name the manufacturer has given the seat.

While Standard No. 213 does not expressly restrict how you name your product, you should consider the following when making your decision. Three names on your list refer to model #632 as a "convertible" child seat ("convertible car seat," "convertible/booster," "convertible toddler seat"). Standard No. 213 does not define what is a "convertible" child seat. However, the term has long been used in the child passenger safety community to refer to a child restraint system that can be used rear-facing for infants and forward- facing for older children. We are concerned that calling model #632 a "convertible" seat could possibly confuse consumers about its suitability for infants, which may result in some consumers using the restraint with an infant. With that possibility in mind, we suggest you avoid using the term "convertible" in naming the model #632 car seat.

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

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel d:1/4/95 ref:213

ID: 10425

Mr. Antonio Salvetti
540 Brickell Key Drive, #730
Miami, FL 33131

Dear Mr. Salvetti:

This responds to your letter in which you inquired about a vehicle called an "AGM Playa."

You stated that Advanced Generation Motors, Inc. (AGM) converts a Geo Metro or Suzuki Swift into an "AGM Playa" by removing the doors, cutting the roof and "redesigning the vehicle in fiberglass." You stated that the Playa has no doors but can be enclosed in canvas. The pictures you enclosed depicts a subcompact passenger car with no doors and no top but with the A and B pillars intact. A spare tire in a cover has been mounted on the outside of the back of the car. You asked four specific questions, which I will address after first providing some background information.

49 U.S.Code, '30101, et seq.(hereinafter referred to as the Safety Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act further provides that no person may manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce into interstate commerce, or import into the United States any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment unless that vehicle or item of equipment complies with all FMVSSs applicable to that product on the date of its manufacture. In addition, the Safety Act establishes a self-certification system in which manufacturers are responsible not only for ensuring that their vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable FMVSSs, but also for certifying such compliance. That certification must be displayed in the form of a label as required by 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568.

It appears that the modifications made to the original vehicle makes AGM an alterer of new motor vehicles. An "alterer" is one who, before sale of a previously- certified new motor vehicle to its first retail purchaser, modifies the vehicle other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, or by altering a vehicle so that its stated weight ratings are no longer valid (49 CFR 567.7). 49 CFR 567.7 requires the alterer to ensure that the vehicle, as altered, conforms to the FMVSSs affected by the alteration(s) and to certify to that effect in accordance with 49 CFR 567.7. Alterers make such certification by affixing a permanent label to the altered vehicle identifying the alterer and the date of alteration. The label must also include a statement that the vehicle, as altered, continues to comply with all applicable FMVSSs. Finally, the alterer must allow the original manufacturer's certification label to remain affixed to the vehicle.

With that background in mind, I turn now to your specific questions.

a. Is this vehicle approved to be on the streets? ANSWER: As stated above, manufacturers must ensure that their vehicles or equipment meet all FMVSSs and certify such compliance. NHTSA does not approve, disapprove, endorse, or offer assurances of compliance of any product in advance of the manufacturer's certification. Rather, NHTSA enforces compliance with the standards as explained in c below. In addition, states have authority to regulate the use of motor vehicles. Therefore, if the state accepts the vehicle for registration, that is an indication that the vehicle meets all state requirements. Accordingly, you should contact your state authorities to determine if the vehicle would meet Florida's licensing and registration requirements. If the required certifications are affixed to the vehicle as discussed above, and if the vehicle is properly registered under state law, the vehicle may be operated "on the streets."

As explained in c below, NHTSA has the authority to determine, in the course of compliance or defect proceedings, that a particular vehicle is unsafe. In that event, the vehicle manufacturer will be required to recall the vehicle and remedy the unsafe feature. We do not prohibit a recalled vehicle from being operated on the streets. Again, the use of motor vehicles is a matter of state law.

b. How do I know that they [vehicles) comply with all the safety requirements? ANSWER: As discussed above, manufacturers and alterers are required to indicate their respective certifications by labels permanently affixed to the vehicle. Look for such labels or ask the alterer to point them out to you.

c. How are they (alterer) responsible for any vehicle problems? ANSWER: NHTSA enforces the FMVSSs in proceedings in which the agency purchases vehicles or equipment at retail and tests them in accordance with the test procedures specified in the standards. If the product "passes" the compliance tests, no further action is taken. If a noncompliance is found, the manufacturer must notify the purchasers of the product and remedy the problem at no expense to the purchasers (i.e., "recall" the product). NHTSA also investigates safety related defects. If either NHTSA or the manufacturer identifies a defect affecting motor vehicle safety, the manufacturer must recall the product.

NHTSA also has authority to oversee how some commercial businesses modify new and used vehicles. 49 U.S.C. '30122 provides that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any device or element of design installed in or on a vehicle in compliance with an FMVSS unless that manufacturer, etc., reasonably believes that the vehicle will not be used while the device is inoperative. Violation of this provision could subject the violator to civil penalties of up to $1,000 per violation, or a maximum penalty of up to $800,000 for a series of related violations (49 U.S.C. '30165).

Apart from what is required by the FMVSSs, presumably the vehicle you purchase will be covered by a warranty of some kind. As a consumer, you should ascertain whether the alterer warrants the work and/or whether the vehicle manufacturer's warranty may be voided by the alterations.

d. Are there any other requirements beside safety to meet? ANSWER: NHTSA administers a number of programs in addition to the safety program of the FMVSSs. For example, new vehicles must meet fuel economy, bumper, and theft prevention standards in addition to the FMVSSs. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those programs. The responsibility to meet those requirements falls on the manufacturer and seller of the vehicle.

As stated previously, this agency's authority, except for the defect, compliance, and making inoperative provisions of the Safety Act, terminates upon the first retail sale of a vehicle. After that, the use of that product becomes a matter of state concern. States may impose their own requirements with regard to use, inspection, registration, taxation, and so forth. Accordingly, you should contact your state department of motor vehicles for any further requirements that may be applicable to this "Playa" vehicle.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:567 d:12/29/94

ID: 10439

Mr. Donald Orlando
Orlando World Industries
7 Woodside Avenue
White Plains, NY 10604

Dear Mr. Orlando:

This responds to your letter concerning whether your "Seat Belt Buddy" would be affected by any Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards issued by this agency. You describe the product as "a stuffed toy animal with a slit in the center of the animal where you insert the seat belt through and then into the automobile's buckle."

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. We do have a standard (Standard 209, Seat belt assemblies) that sets forth requirements for new seat belt assemblies. We also have a standard (Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials) that sets forth flammability resistance requirements for the originally installed safety belts of the vehicle. However, since your product would not be part of a new seat belt assembly, these standards would not apply.

While no Federal motor vehicle safety standard 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 consumers. 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 the vehicle belt system. For example, they must ensure that the Seat Belt Buddy does not impair the function of the safety belt or belt retractor, or vitiate the compliance of the belts with Standard No. 302. 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 the addition of any device to a vehicle's belt system raises possible safety concerns. 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. We urge you to carefully evaluate whether your product would in any way compromise the safety protection provided by the vehicle belt system, and whether instructions to the consumer are needed to advise about the proper use of the product. Among other things, you should evaluate whether children are likely to play with the "Seat Belt Buddy" in a manner that either introduces excessive slack in the shoulder belt, thereby reducing the protection provided by that belt in the event of a crash, or the inadvertent unlatching of the belt system. Finally, since the originally installed safety belts must meet the requirements of Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, we encourage you not to degrade the flammability performance of safety belts.

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

Enclosure

ref:208#209 d:1/5/95

ID: 10440

Mr. Scott E. Peters
Director, Regulations & Compliance
U.S. Electricar
5355 Skylane Boulevard
Santa Rosa, CA 95403

Dear Mr. Peters:

This responds to your letter to me in which you asked whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire selection and rims (49 CFR 571.110), applies to your Electricar sedan.

You explained that your Electricar sedan (Electricar), a converted Geo Prizm, is being built under NHTSA Exemption No. 92-3 for low-emission vehicles. You stated that the Electricar's speed and endurance limitations are substantially below those of internal combustion-powered vehicles. You further stated that it is your understanding that "the purpose of Standard No. 110, S4.4.2 (I assume you meant paragraph S4.2.2, since there is no S4.4.2 in the standard) is to ensure against tire failure due to prolonged operation at speeds in the range of 75 mph or higher." Thus, you interpret FMVSS No. 110 as not applying to the Electricar or other electric passenger cars "in which it is physically impossible to operate at high speeds for an extended duration." You asked this agency, therefore, to review paragraph S4.2.2 and provide you our opinion as to its applicability to your Electricar. As discussed below, the requirements of S4.2.2 are applicable to electric passenger cars.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues safety standards for motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. The agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable safety standards.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110 specifies requirements for tire selection to prevent overloading. Section S2 of the standard provides that the standard applies to passenger cars. S4.2 of the standard specifies the following tire load limits:

S4.2.1 The vehicle maximum load on the tire shall not be greater than the applicable maximum load rating as marked on the sidewall of the tire.

S4.2.2 The vehicle normal load on the tire shall not be greater than the test load used in the high speed performance test specified in S5.5 of section 571.109 of that tire.

The test load used in the high speed performance test specified in S5.5 of Standard No. 109 is 88 percent of the tire's maximum load rating as marked on the tire sidewall.

With respect to your question whether S4.2.2 applies to electric passenger cars, the answer is yes. That section applies on its face to all passenger cars, and does not include an exception for electric passenger cars.

Your understanding that the purpose of S4.2.2 is limited to ensuring against tire failure due to prolonged operation at speeds in the range of 75 mph or higher is incorrect. The reference in that requirement to Standard No. 109's high speed performance test is for the sole purpose of specifying a load and not to indicate that the requirement is limited to high speed operation.

As indicated above, Standard No. 110 seeks to ensure that tires are not overloaded. One way Standard No. 110 does this is by requiring in S4.2.1 that the vehicle maximum load on the tire not exceed the maximum load rating of the tire. Another way Standard No. 110 does this is by limiting the vehicle normal load on the tire, so that the tire will have some reserve load carrying capacity available to handle safely cargo and other kinds of added loading the car may experience. S4.2.2 does this by limiting the normal load on a tire to 88 percent of the tire's maximum load rating, which ensures that 12 percent of the tire's load rating will be available to bear cargo and other added loads.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:110 d:2/13/95

ID: 10441

Mr. Randal Busick
President
Vehicle Science Corporation
315 East Eisenhower Parkway, Suite 211
Ann Arbor, MI 48108

Dear Mr. Busick:

This responds to your letter of October 14, 1994, concerning whether a belt design would comply with S7.1.2 of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, as amended in a final rule published on August 3, 1994 and effective on September 1, 1997 (59 FR 39472). As described in your letter, for this belt design, "the inboard lower FMVSS 210 anchorage is located on the seat frame and thus, as the seat moves fore and aft, the system allows a minimum of two seat belt adjustment positions and the distance between the two extreme adjustment positions of the system is more than 5 cm."

The August 3 final rule amended Standard No. 208 to improve the fit and increase the comfort of safety belts for a variety of different sized occupants. After the effective date, S7.1.2 will, in pertinent part, read as follows:

... for each Type 2 seat belt assembly which is required by Standard No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208), the upper anchorage, or the lower anchorage nearest the intersection of the torso belt and the lap belt, shall include a movable component which has a minimum of two adjustment positions. The distance between the geometric center of the movable component at the two extreme adjustment positions shall be not less than five centimeters, measured linearly.

As illustrated in the drawing provided with your letter, the inboard anchorage on your seat design is the "the lower anchorage nearest the intersection of the torso belt and the lap belt."

It would appear that, under the definition of "seat belt anchorage" in Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Anchorages, the seat would be considered part of the anchorage for your design. Standard No. 210 defines a "seat belt anchorage" as

any component, other than the webbing or straps, involved in transferring seat belt loads to the vehicle structure, including, but not limited to, the attachment hardware, seat frames, seat pedestals, the vehicle structure itself, and any part of the vehicle whose failure causes separation of the belt from the vehicle structure.

If the seat is part of the anchorage, and if the seat can be adjusted more than 5 cm, measured linearly, it appears that your design will meet the requirement of S7.1.2.

While not directly relevant to your question, agency technical staff raised concerns about a device in the drawing enclosed with your letter. The drawing of the system shows a device labeled "Slider Bar" to which the outboard lower end of the seat belt anchorage is attached. While no detail is provided on this device, agency staff are concerned that the device (which appears to function as the lower outboard anchorage) allows the seat belt webbing attachment to slide freely fore and aft longitudinally. If our interpretation of the drawing is correct, this device may prevent the belt system from meeting the occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 208, as well as prevent the anchorage from meeting the anchorage location requirements of S4.3 of Standard No. 210. Finally, the device may introduce slack in the belt system, preventing the belt from adequately securing a child safety restraint in the seat or providing complete protection to an adult.

I hope this information has been 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

Enclosure

ref:208 d:1/5/95

ID: 10443

Mr. Jerry G. Sullivan, P.E.
The Braun Corporation
Post Office Box 310
Winamac, IN 46996

Dear Mr. Sullivan:

This responds to your letter addressed to Mary Versailles of this office in which you asked whether, under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release, the driver's side front door area on non- school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) less than 10,000 pounds could be credited toward the unobstructed openings requirement of section S5.2.

The opening paragraph of section S5.2, Provision of emergency exits, requires buses other than school buses to provide unobstructed openings for emergency exits which collectively amount, in square inches, to 67 times the number of designated seating positions on the vehicle. The same paragraph also requires that at least 40 percent of the total unobstructed opening area must be provided on each side of the bus. No single emergency exit, however, can be credited with more than 536 square inches of the total area requirement.

With regard to non-school buses with a GVWR less than 10,000 pounds, section S5.2.2(c) provides that such buses may meet the emergency exit requirements by means of doors. Accordingly, nothing in the standard prohibits crediting the driver's side door as an emergency exit so long as it meets all emergency exit requirements of the standard, including the release mechanism and 40 percent requirements, up to a maximum credit of 536 square inches.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:217 d:1/9/95

ID: 10444

Ms. Jean Moffitt
17311 Equestrian Trail
Odessa, FL 33556

Dear Ms. Moffitt:

This responds to your letter to this office in which you stated that your son, a 9th grade student, rides a 65-passenger school bus in which he must sit on the edge of the seat such that only half his body is on the seat.

We recently addressed this issue in an October 26, 1994, letter to Ms. Debra Platt of Stuart, Florida, and have enclosed a copy of our response for your information. We have also enclosed a copy of Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, a copy of a report prepared by this agency entitled School Bus Safety Report, and a copy of a Report Summary prepared by the Transportation Research Board in May, 1989. The latter two reports give a good overview of the issues connected with school bus safety, and they and Guideline 17 contain recommendations to the various states in developing their own pupil transportation safety programs.

I hope the enclosed information is helpful to you. Should you have any other questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:222 d:2/3/395

ID: 10456

Ms. Darlene Skelton
President
National Institute of Emergency Vehicle Safety, Inc.
17155 Robey Drive, Suite 101
Castro Valley, CA 94546-3852

Dear Ms. Skelton:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Barry Felrice, Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards of this agency, in which you asked the applicability of our Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) to three specific scenarios. I apologize for the delay in responding.

By way of background information, under the provisions of Chapter 301 of Title 49 U. S. Code, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has authority to issue FMVSSs applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. All new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment must comply with all applicable FMVSSs in effect on the date of manufacture, and manufacturers must certify such compliance by affixing to each vehicle a manufacturer's certification label. Among other requirements, the certification label must contain the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of each vehicle and the gross axle weight rating (GAWR) of each axle on the vehicle, identified in order from front to rear.

a. Your first question referred to a situation in which the GVWR exceeded the tire load ratings. Specifically, you alluded to the case of a fire truck with four rear mounted tires, each rated at 7,000 pounds (lb), that were installed on a 31,000 lb. axle. You stated that the final stage manufacturer received a letter from the tire manufacturer raising the tire inflation pressures from 100 to 110 or 115 pounds per square inch and limiting the driving to not more than 7 miles at a speed not to exceed 55 miles per hour. You asked whether such practices violated the FMVSSs.

Paragraph S5.1.2 of FMVSS No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars, provides in pertinent part:

[T]he sum of the maximum load ratings of the tires fitted to an axle shall be not less than the gross axle weight rating (GAWR) of the axle system as specified on the vehicle's certification label required by 49 CFR part 567.

In other words, the load ratings of the tires on motor vehicles other than passenger cars must be at least equal to the weight ratings of the axles on which the tires are installed. The standard makes no provision for changing the tire inflation pressures or driving at restricted speeds or limiting the distances the vehicle may travel to compensate for discrepancies in the load and weight ratings.

The facts you provided us, however, are not sufficient on which to base an opinion as to whether there has been a noncompliance in that instance. We would have to know all the facts and circumstances relevant to the tire manufacturer's alleged actions, including input from the manufacturer itself, before we could arrive at a conclusion in that regard.

b. Your second question referred to vehicles in which axles had been rerated. You cited a situation in which a manufacturer increased the GAWR of fire trucks because fire trucks do not cycle as much as tractor trailer trucks. Thus, the manufacturer increased the GAWR of fire trucks from 22,000 to 24 000 lbs.

NHTSA defines the GAWR as:

[T]he value specified by the vehicle manufacturer as the load-carrying capacity of a single axle system, as measured at the tire-ground interface (emphasis added).

A manufacturer's assigning different GAWRs to axles on different vehicles is not prohibited by our FMVSSs. In fact, manufacturers routinely assign different GAWRs and GVWRs to different vehicles based on the various equipment options and add-ons, particularly with respect to emergency vehicles. In any case, NHTSA expects that the GAWR(s) stated on the vehicle's certification label correctly reflects the manufacturer's certification that the vehicle complies with all FMVSSs applicable to that vehicle.

c. Your final question asked whether it was a violation of the FMVSS for manufacturers to take the air supply for their vehicle horns off the air supply for the vehicle's brakes. The answer is, in general, no.

FMVSS No. 121, Air brake systems, specifies performance and equipment requirements for braking systems on motor vehicles other than passenger cars that are equipped with air brake systems. The standard does not prohibit the use of air pressure from the brake air supply for the horn, but doing so could affect the vehicle's compliance with the standard.

If the horn operating off the brake air supply is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the manufacturer is required to certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSSs, including FMVSS No. 121. If the horn is added to a previously certified new vehicle, the person so modifying the vehicle would be an alterer who would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the FMVSSs affected by the alteration. If the horn were installed on a used vehicle by a vehicle repair business, that business would not be required to attach a label or recertify the vehicle. It would, however, have to make sure that it did not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in the vehicle in compliance with an applicable FMVSS.

In addition, hoses connected to air horns could be subject to Safety Standard No. 106, Brake hoses. They are subject to the standard if they transmit or contain the brake air pressure used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes, i.e., if a failure of the hose would result in a loss of air pressure in the brake system. If this would be the case, the hoses are "brake hoses" and must comply with Standard No. 106. If a check valve or other device is used to prevent loss of pressure, then the hose would not contain or transmit the air pressure and would not be required to comply with the brake hose standard.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

ref:106#120#121#567 d:4/10/95