ID: 7174

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

Dear Mr. Hecker:

This responds to your letter of April 2, 1992 concerning possible interpretations of section S5.1.4(c) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection, as it applies to the R-BARR Passenger Restraint System (R-BAR). (While your letter refers to section S5.1.2(c), you clarified in a telephone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff that your concerns relate to section S5.1.4(c).) The R-BAR is a padded restraining device, and the ends of the device attach to the rear of a school bus seatback. The device folds down for the purpose of restraining the passengers seated in the next rearward seat. Your letter states that Micho Industries believes that:

A. The standard is not applicable to the R-BAR passenger restraint.

B. The R-BAR complies with the intent of Standard No. 222.

To support these statements you offer the following reasons:

1. The R-BAR is not a fixed position device, nor is it a rigid component of the seat structure.

2. In the event of a rear impact, the R-BAR incorporates a design that allows it to move upward, and away, from the adjoining seat which would thus allow the minimum clearance as intended.

3. The standard in question (571.222, section S5.1.4(c)) was written without the authors having the benefit of knowledge of this type of device and thus allowances were not included for its possible use.

The issue of whether Standard No. 222 is applicable to a device such as the R-BAR has been addressed previously by this agency. Enclosed are copies of four letters concerning similar devices (Mr. Joseph F. Mikoll, November 3, 1988, and March 10, 1989; The Honorable Robert J. Lagomarsino, January 8, 1990; and Mr. Scott K. Hiler, January 31, 1991). Those letters make it clear that if a device such as the R-BAR is installed in any new school bus, the school bus manufacturer must certify that the vehicle meets all applicable safety standards with the device installed. The letters also make it clear that such devices may not legally be installed in used school buses by commercial establishments such as repair businesses if the effect of such installation is to take the vehicle out of compliance with any safety standard.

With respect to your assertion that the R-BAR complies with the intent of Standard No. 222, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires NHTSA to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that prescribe objective requirements. Under the Act, manufacturers must certify that their products comply with the requirements of all applicable standards and not merely with some alleged "intent" of a standard. Further, manufacturers may not certify products based on speculation that the agency would have established different requirements had it known of a particular design.

With regard to your specific concerns about S5.1.4(c), that section states that when a seat back is subjected to a specified force, "(t)he seat shall not deflect by an amount such that any part of the seat moves to within 4 inches of any part of another passenger seat in its originally installed position." In the enclosed letter to Mr. Hiler, the agency stated that "once the restraining bar is attached to the seatback, it is part of the seatback." Therefore, the R-BAR would be considered a part of the seat subject to the requirements of S5.1.4.(c)

Section S5.1.4(c)'s requirements are not limited to rigid components of a seat, and therefore the fact that the R-BAR is not a fixed position device is not relevant to the applicability of those requirements. With respect to your argument that the device will move upward and away in the event of a rear impact, Standard No. 222 sets forth a specific test procedure for the requirement specified in S5.1.4(c). Manufacturers are required to certify that a vehicle complies with the requirements of the standard when tested in accordance with that test procedure.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:222 d:5/14/92

ID: 77-3.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/18/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Michelin Tire Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Michelin's March 23, 1977, letter concerning its February 20, 1976 petition for reconsideration of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. Your petition for reconsideration was responded to on February 7, 1977 (42 FR 7140). By this letter, you attempt to resubmit your petition for reconsideration.

Petitions for reconsideration must be received by the agency within 30 days of the publication of a notice. Since the resubmission of your petition is untimely, it has been considered a petition for rulemaking as required by Part 553.35 of our regulations (Code of Federal Regulations, Volume 49). The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) denies your requested rulemaking.

Your petition suggests that consumers will be confused by the tire label information if the vehicle is not equipped with the tires identified on the label. The agency has determined that confusion will be minimized by the use of the optional heading "Suitable Tire-Rim Choice."

Your petition raises a second problem concerning tires of identical size designations manufactured by different companies. These tires may have different inflation pressures even though their sizes are identical. The agency understands that this difference in inflation pressure could result in confusion. Manufacturers, however, can avoid this problem through the use of the manufacturer's name on the tire information label as part of the tire information. Use of the manufacturer's name on the label should distinguish between two otherwise similar tires.

SINCERELY,

MARCH 23, 1977

Docket Section National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Petition for Reconsideration

Docket No. 71-19; Notice 6

Part 567 - Certification

Docket No. 75-32; Notice 2

Part 571 - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 120 Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles other than Passenger Cars We are writing regarding your response to our petition for re-consideration of FMVSS 120 which we submitted February 20, 1976, wherein we requested deletion of the requirement that tire information appear on the certification label. It is our contention that many consumers upon seeing this label will be led to believe that the tires listed are the only tires that can be legally used on the vehicle and that the inflation pressures on the label are the required operating pressures for the tires.

In addition, the inclusion of tire pressures on the FMVSS 120 certification label will be especially confusing since tires of the same size designation can require different pressures for the same load carrying capacity.

In the response to our petition, which appeared in the Federal Register Vol. 42, No. 25 dated Monday, February 7, 1977, it is stated that it is the agency's view that any possibility of confusion can easily be avoided by an indication that the tire designation represents a radial tire, so that a person substituting a non-radial tire size with the same designation is aware that the two tires are not identical.

However, we wish to point out to the agency that we were not only referring to tires of different constructions but also to tires of the same construction. For example, a Michelin 10.00R20 LR G radial tire carrying a tire load of 6040 lbs. requires 100 psi whereas a 10.00R20 LR G radial tire standardized by the American Tire and Rim Association requires 105 psi for the same load.

Since FMVSS 119 does not require tires of the same size designation to have identical load/inflation values, the fact is that many Michelin tires have different pressure requirements than T&RA tires of the same size -- designations, even though they are both radial tires. This fact could, in some cases, cause users to underinflate their tires based on the inflation pressure indicated on the certification label.

We therefore re-submit our petition for re-consideration and once again urge the agency to reconsider the necessity of requiring information on the certification label that will lead to a great deal of confusion. We request that the requirement that tire information appear on the certification label be deleted.

MICHELIN TIRE CORPORATION Technical Group

John B. White Engineering Manager Technical Information Dept.

ID: 1984-2.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/11/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: State of Alabama

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Wayne Teague State Superintendent of Education State of Alabama State Office Building Montgomery, Alabama 36130

Dear Mr. Teague:

This responds to your June 27, 1984, letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requesting information regarding the legal ramifications of converting school buses with gasoline or diesel fuel systems to propane or compressed natural gas fuel systems.

We are enclosing a copy of a letter that we sent on August 17, 1979, to Mr. Mike Champagne, which discusses the Federal requirements and implications of making such conversions of vehicle fuel systems. This letter should provide you with the information that you requested. You specifically asked about the possible liability in tort that the Department of Education may incur as a result of the conversion. We emphasize that the possibility of tortious liability, which is governed by State law, exists even where the modifications are made in compliance with the requirements of this agency. We suggest that you therefore discuss the matter of liability in tort with your insurance company and attorney.

You also asked whether there is an agency which can certify that the modified fuel system complies with a safety standard, thereby providing school systems and Department of Education with a defense in the event of a private lawsuit in tort. We are not aware of any Federal agency that provides this type of certification. You may want to consider having the modified fuel systems on your school buses tested by a private engineering or research facility to verify that the conversions were properly done.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosure

June 27, 1984

Mr. Frank A. Berndt, Chief Council N.H.T.S.A. - NOA-30 U. S. Department of Transportation Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

A variety of fuel alternatives is being offered by fuel innovators that will reduce gasoline fuel consumption or replace gasoline altogether. Some energy experts are calling for massive efforts on the part of industry and government to speed the development of the synthetic fuels industry to reduce the dependence on oil imports. However, even in light of all the research by government and private agencies, there are no Federal Department of Transportation Safety Standards relating directly to the use of propane or compressed natural gas on school buses. School buses powered by gasoline or diesel fuel are certified by the manufacturer as meeting the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-Fuel System Integrity.

Alabama's Minimum Specifications for School Buses require that school buses be certified by the manufacturer to the State Department of Education in the form of a certification plate mounted in the bus that states the vehicle is in compliance with the applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards which include Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-Fuel System Integrity.

It is the opinion of the Alabama State Department of Education that the safety inspection program conducted by the School Bus Equipment Inspectors approves the vehicle only as it relates to the original manufacturer's certification. Our questions are as follows: (1) If we allow the local school systems to remove the gasoline fuel system which is regulated by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-Fuel System Integrity and install a propane or compressed natural gas fuel system which is not regulated by the United States Department of Transportation Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, would the State Department of Education be liable for any accident, injury, or death that may be caused by or related to the conversion? (2) Is there an agency which can certify that the fuel system, after conversion, meets a required safety standard that would protect the local school system and the State Department of Education from liability for any accident, injury, or death that may be caused by or related to the conversion?

Your prompt attention to this matter is greatly appreciated. Sincerely,

Wayne Teague State Superintendent of Education WT:nfd

ID: nht80-3.13

DATE: 06/30/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mercedes-Benz

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

FMVSS INTERPRETATION

Mr. Craig Jones Mercedes-Benz One Mercedes Drive Montvale, New Jersey 07645

Dear Mr. Jones:

This responds to the questions you raised with Stephen Oesch and John Carson on May 8, 1980, about Standard No. 101-80, Controls and Displays. your question concerned a heating and windshield defrosting and defogging system developed by Mercedes. As requested, I have enclosed the originals of the drawing and photoqraph of the system you left with the agency.

The system consists of five controls: three rotating knobs, one of which controls the heat for the left side of the vehicle, one to control the heat on the right side, and one to control a fan. The other two controls are sliding levers, one of which directs the air flow to the windshield and the other directs air toward the floor. Your first question concerned the use of a green dot and the symbol specified by column 3 of Table 1 for identifying the defrosting and defogging system. You wish to place the symbol adjacent to the slide lever that controls air flow to the windshield and to place the green dot immediately below the symbol. The green dot would be used to identify the position on each of the other four controls that would provide the maximum defrosting or defogging of the windshield.

Section 5.2.1 provides that the identifying symbol specified in column 3 of Table 1 "shall be placed on or adjacent to the control." The section also provides that "additional words or symbols may be used at the manufacturer's discretion for the purpose of clarity." In this case, Mercedes has properly identified the control used to defrost or defog the windshield (the slide that directs air to the windshield) with the symbol specified in column 3 of Table 1 and placed it adjacent to the control. In addition, Mercedes has used the green dot to identify the positions on the heating system needed to obtain maximum defrosting and defogging. Since the additional symbols clarify the use of the heating controls, the use of the green dot is permissible.

Your second question concerned the identification required for the heating system. Section 5.2.2 specifies that "Identification shall be provided for each function of any ...heating and air conditioning control, and for the extreme positions of any such control that regulates a function over a quantitative range." Section 5.2.2 further provides that "If this identification is not specified in Tables 1 or 2, it shall be in word form unless color coding is used. If color coding is used to identify the extreme positions of a temperature control, the hot extreme shall be identified by the color red and the cold extreme by the color blue." The rotary knobs Mercedes uses for the heating system control a single function over a quantitative range, from no heat to maximum heat and thus the extreme positions require identification. The rotary knob shown in your drawing does not comply with section 5.2.2 because it does not identify the extreme positions of the control either in words or in the color coding system required for temperature controls.

Your final question concerned the identification necessary for the slide levers that control the air flow to the windshield or the floor. As mentioned above, section 5.2.2 specifies that "Identification shall be provided for each function of any...heating and air conditioning control, and for the extreme positions of any such control that regulates a function over a quantitative range." Section 5.2.2 further specifies that "If this identification is not specified in Tables 1 or 2, it shall be in word form unless color coding is used." The slide lever Mercedes uses for the air flow controls a single function over a quantitative range, from no air to maximum air, and thus the extreme positions require identification. Mercedes has used a series of geometric shapes-which are highlighted by a color (white) to indicate which direction to move the slide lever to obtain more air. That color in and of itself has no meaning and therefore, it is not part of a color coding system. Those geometric shapes must be accompanied by or replaced by words in order to identify the positions for minimum and maximum air or an appropriate color coding system should be used.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ID: nht81-1.26

DATE: 03/05/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Travel Accessories, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

FMVSS INTERPRETATION Mr. Ed Detwiler President Travel Accessories, Inc. P.O. Box 248 Orland, CA 95963

Dear Mr. Detwiler: This is in reply to your letter of February 12, 1981 with reference to the automotive aftermarket cruise control device offered by a competitor of yours which you believe does not comply with paragraph SS.3.1 of Standard No. 101.

That section, in pertinent part and in conjunction with Table 1 requires the illumination of the identification of automotive vehicle speed controls that are hand-operated if located other than on the floor, floor console, steering column or in the windshield header area. You have told us that the installation instructions advise that the control module "be mounted on the automobile's dashboard or console, as well as the steering column, the dashboard listed as being the preferred location."

Standard No. 101 is intended to apply to vehicles as delivered to their purchasers, rather than to individual aftermarket equipment items installed on them. If the device you describe is added after first purchase of the vehicle for purposes other than resale, there is no requirement that the device comply with Standard No. 101. If it is added before such purchase, the dealer selling the vehicle would have the legal responsibility of insuring that the identification of any dashboard mounted control was illuminated. We do not require a separate lamp for each control, and ambient illumination provided by lights for other controls could be sufficient to meet the requirements.

Under the circumstances, the manufacturer or importer of the device you describe would not appear to be in violation of Standard No. 101.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

February 12, 1981

Mr. Frank Berndt U. S. Department of Trasportation 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I would like to notify your agency that at present an automotive aftermarket cruise control device is being marketed in this country which is in direct violation of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, section 5.3.1.

The unit in question is called the Zemco Zt and Zemco Ztll currently marketed by Zemco, Inc. 12907 Alcosta Blvd. , San Ramon, California. These wits feature a control module , which according to the manufacturer' s installation instructions ad advertising materials is designed to be mounted on the automobile's dashboard or console , as well as the steering column, the dashboard listed as being the preferred location. This control module is not illuminated as required under the aforementioned standard.

The result of this violation is obvious. When the module is installed as recommended, it becomes a safety hazard. Travel Accessories, Inc., as a domestic manufacturer of a electronic cruise control which is in full accord of all U. S. Department of Transportation safety standards , objects that this product which is manufactured in Taiwan be allowed to be continued to be sold in this country while in obvious violation of our own government's regulations.

Continued condoning of this violation perpetuates a unfair competitive advantage. Zemco, Inc. currently enjoys a pricing advantage over Travel Accessories and other domestic manufacturers of this product category because of lower costs of materials and labor by not having to meet U.S. standards.

Travel Accessories, Inc. owns two plants in the United States totalling over 150,000 square feet and employing in excess of two hundred and fifty people. We have spent over a three year period of research and development and a great deal of funds bringing to market a quality piece of merchandise which complies with all of our own government regulations at what we believe to be a fair ad equitable price. file are forced to meet stringent government requirements ad standards in those countries we attempt to export to, only to find that a product such as this finds its way into our own domestic channels of distribution unregulated, with a minimal investment.

We request that the department of transportation take immediate action to have existing inventories of this product upgraded to meet all safety standards of the U. S. Department of Trade and further requires all future shipments of product received in this country to meet those stated requirements, as well.

I await your earliest response.

Sincerely,

Ed Detwiler President ED/sv

ID: nht81-2.23

DATE: 05/12/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Gateway Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MAY 12 1981

NOA-30

Mr. John S. Miskowicz Gateway Industries, Inc. 17512 Carriage Way Drive Hazel Crest, Illinois 60429

Dear Mr. Miskowicz:

This responds to your letter of March 2, 1981, to Vladislav Radovich concerning Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. Your letter was forwarded to this office for reply.

You asked whether a child restraint belt buckle must meet the buckle force release requirements when tested in an unloaded condition. As explained below, the answer is no. The buckle force requirements only apply to buckles tested in a loaded condition. In addition, you asked whether section 4.3(a) and 4.3(b) of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, are the only requirements of that standard which apply to buckles in child restraint systems. The answer is yes.

Section 5.4.3.5 of Standard No. 213 provides that each child restraint belt buckle, when tested in accordance with S6.2, must not release when a force of not more than 12 pounds is applied before the dynamic sled specified in S6.1 is conducted. The buckle must release when a force of 20 pounds is applied after the dynamic sled test. Section 6.2 provides that in conducting the belt buckle release force test, the appropriate test dummy is placed in the restraint and either a pull force of 20 pounds is applied, in the case of 6 month-old-test dummy, or a 45 pound pull force is applied, in the case of the three-year-old test dummy. Thus, the buckle is not tested in an unloaded state.

Section 5.4.2 of the standard provides that each belt buckle has to conform to the "requirements of S4.3(a) and S4.3(b) of FMVSS No. 209." No other provisions of Standard No. 209 apply to belt buckles used in child restraints.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

March 2, 1981

Office of Vehicle Safety Standards National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington D.C. 20590

Attention: Mr. Vladislav Radovich

Dear Mr. Radovich:

Enclosed please find three prototype samples of our child seat buckle we would like to market. Gateway Industries is a major supplier of seat belts to General Motors and Chrysler and we hope to expand our product line by offering this item to child seat manufacturers.

We feel that our buckle meets all of the specifications of Standard 213, however, there is one area we wish you would clarify in regard to the 12 lb. to 20 lb. release force. (You may recall my phone call to you in the first week of January.)

Our buckle meets the letter of the spec as written. That is, as specified in S5.4.3.5 we meet S6.2 before and after the test specified in S6.1. Standard 213 makes no mention of how to test the buckle in an unloaded state. Does the 12 to 20 lbs. apply to the unloaded condition?

The three enclosed buckles do meet the 12 lb. minimum in the unloaded state, however, we are marginal and I doubt we can consistently obtain this on a large volume product basis. I theorize that on cccasion we will have release efforts of 10 lbs. in the unloaded state. Would this mean that we do not comply with Standard 213? With the slightest load applied to the buckle (approximately 5 lbs.), the release efforts increase and we again are in compliance. Also, in the "Summary of Final Rule Provisions", No. 5 states the requirements in 209 apply and S5.4.2 states S4.3(a) and S4.3(b) of 209 apply. Does this mean that only the requirements of S4.3(a) and S4.3(b) apply or do all the requirements of 209 apply?

We thank you for your time in reviewing this matter and would appreciate your written response. Please feel free to include any comments you may have concerning our product.

I would like to add that our buckle has been dynamically tested to Standard 213 on a Strolee Seat System at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor and proven successful. We can guarantee a tensile load of 750 lbs.

Truly yours,

GATEWAY INDUSTRIES, INC.

John S. Miskowicz Manager, Design Engineering

ID: nht78-1.8

DATE: 11/20/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: The Armstrong Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Nov. 20, 1978

Mr. R. W. Cheetham Director, Quality Assurance The Armstrong Rubber Company 500 Sargent Drive New Haven, Connecticut 06507

Dear Mr. Cheetham:

This is in response to your letter of October 19, 1978, requesting approval of the tread labels Armstrong Rubber Company proposes to use in satisfaction of the labeling requirements of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS) (49 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(i)(B)). You propose to include the applicable UTQGS grades for a particular tire on a trend label identifying the tire brand, type and size. A separate label would contain the general grading information from Figure 2 of the rule, including a listing of all possible traction and temperture grades, with the text on the label oriented along the tread circumference instead of across it.

Part 575.104(d)(1)(i)(B) requires that each passenger car replacement tire, other than a snow tire or temporary use spare tire, have affixed a tread label containing both the specific UTQGS grades for the tire and an explanation of the grades in the form illustrated in Figure 2. Thus, the specific grades for the tire must appear on the same label that contains the explanation of the grading system. The regulation calls for a depiction of all possible traction and temperature grades with the grades applicable to the specific tire indelibly circled.

While the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has no objection to the inclusion of the required UTQGS information on the same label with other data such as tire size and brand name, failure to provide the required explanations of the same label with the applicable tire grades is not permitted by the regulation. Your proposed labels also fail to meet the regulation's requirement that applicable traction and temperature grades be denoted by circling the appropriate letter in a display of all possible grades. Finally, the general UTQGS information in your proposal is not in the form illustrated in Figure 2, since the text in your example will appear along the tread rather than at right angles as specified by Figure 2.

While your proposed tread labels do not meet the present requirements of Part 575.104(d)(l)(i)(B), NHTSA will treat your letter as a petition for rulemaking and consider amending the UTQG regulation to permit greater flexibility in tread labeling.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

October 19, 1978

Dr. Cecil Brenner Automotive Rating NRM-30 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Dr. Brenner:

Subject: Part 575.104 Uniform tire quality grading page 30549 of the Federal Register, dated Monday, July 17, 1978.

This is to confirm our telephone conversation of October 19, 1978, concerning the labeling requirements of the subject part.

The Armstrong Rubber Company requests an interpretation of this section. As stated to you, Armstrong requested that the treadwear, traction, and temperature identification be added to our regular label, which identifies a specific tire. In addition, the legend labeled as figure 2 in the subject part number would be affixed to the tread surface a maximum of 1/2" from the end of the label, which has the identification symbols. In this manner we will minimize the possibibities of mislabeling tires.

The Armstrong Rubber Company has requested that only one identification symbol be placed on the label which clearly defines the traction and temperature resistance of the particular tire. This would replace indelibly circling on the label one of the three grades under the traction and temperature resistance characteristics.

The Armstrong Rubber Company respectfully requests that part 575.104 be modified so that the labeling can be interpreted as indicated above.

Please find attached a copy of the two labels that the Armstrong Rubber Company would appreciate your consideration and concurrence. Label number 2, which is the legend describing the D.O.T. quality grading, was not printed verbatum and will be changed as shown in figure 2 of part 575.104. Figure 2 on page 30552 of the Federal Register was changed to reflect your thinking on the traction grades as A, B, C.

I trust this request will meet with your approval. If additional information is requested, please contact my office.

Sincerely,

R. W. Cheetham Director, Quality Assurance

cc: J.A. Walsh R. L. Donnelly

RWC/eam

ID: nht78-2.37

DATE: 06/20/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Minnesota Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Administrator Claybrook has asked me to respond to your recent letter concerning the installation of safety belts in the cargo area of a van vehicle for the purpose of securing wheelchair patients. Apparently, your legal counsel has advised you that such installation might be prohibited by Federal law or might give rise to private litigation problems in the future.

In answer to your questions, there is nothing under Federal law or the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that would prevent the installation of safety belts in the cargo area of a van to secure wheelchairs. In fact, Administrator Claybrook and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration encourage you to make the installation requested by the senior citizens home. The safe transportation of disabled persons is currently a serious problem and every effort should be made to ameliorate the situation.

The only instance in which you would have any responsibilities under Federal law would be an installation of additional safety belts prior to first purchase of the van by a consumer. In that case you would be a vehicle alteror, and under our certification regulations you would be required to place an additional label on the vehicle specifying that, as altered, the vehicle is still in compliance with all applicable safety standards (49 CFR 567.7, copy enclosed). For example, you could not destroy the vehicle's compliance with our Fuel System Integrity standard by penetrating the gas tank with the safety belt anchorage bolts.

Concerning your liability in private litigation, the general provisions of negligence law would be applicable, as with any maintenance, repair or alteration done by a motor vehicle repair business. I must defer to the advice of your own counsel on that matter, however.

Once again, the agency does encourage the installation of safety belts for the securement of wheelchairs, since the disabled are seriously endangered without some type of restraint to protect them in a crash. Further, I believe that your fears of liability should be minimal as long as the installation is accomplished with normal consideration and due care.

Please contact Hugh Oates of my office if you have any further questions (202-426-2992).

SINCERELY,

MINNESOTA MOTOR COMPANY

May 19, 1978

Joan Claybrooke National Hwy Traffic Safety Adm.

Dear Ms. Claybrooke:

We have been approached by a local senior citizens home to install safety seat belts in the rear cargo area (of a 1978 Chevrolet Sport Van) to protect patients confined to wheelchairs when being transported.

We have discussed this matter with our state auto dealer legal counsel and they are reluctant to give an affirmative opinion in view of possible litigation in the future. In your recent talk to the Economic Club of Detroit, one of your suggestions concerning safety belts was to "look for ways to increase usage." The administrator of the home is asking us to put them in, but our concern centers around recent court decisions regarding liability, which apparently lasts forever. We would be willing to do the installation, we have found a local supplies of webbing to be used, and the people want it done. However, where do we go.

Possibly, some of the answer could lie in lesser degree of governmental intervention in all phases of business, and getting away from the idea that because some individual has a disagreement with a small business firm or a large manufacturer, the individual is always the one who has been wronged. As a general rule, anyone in business knows full well that he has to satisfy the customer to stay in business and make a profit. Certainly, there are the marginal and downright crooked businessman, as there are in many other portions of our working population. But, the majority of businessmen are conscientious enough to outweigh the bad apples.

Getting back to the problem at hand - what would be your suggestions in the matter of the seat belt installation. Are we asking for problems in case of a failure, or should we try to protect our senior citizens by offering them some safety?

Please advise at your earliest opportunity.

Warren L. VanderLinden Sales Manager

ID: nht91-7.40

DATE: December 10, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by Kenneth Weinstein

TO: James Watson

COPYEE: Area Director of Customs, New York Seaport; Office of Regulations and Rulings, U.S. Customs Service Headquarters

TITLE: Re United States Customs Service File No. 866522R

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-10-91 from James M. Watson to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6569)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for my opinion of whether a particular vehicle, an e-tant manufactured in Thailand by P.S.N, that you wish import into the United States for your own use as a "farm vehicle," would be considered a "motor vehicle" for the purposes of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act). According to materials you submitted, the e-tant has the appearance of a small flat bed truck. However, since it has a small 11.5 horsepower engine, you believe its top speed would be under 20 mph. You believe that the e-tant should be classified as a "farm vehicle," explaining that you disagree with the U.S. Customs Service classification (NY ruling 866522 dated September 11, 1991) of the e-tant as a motor vehicle. You further explained that the e-tant is generally used as a farm vehicle in Thailand. Based on the information provided in your letter, it is our opinion that the e-tant would be a motor vehicle under the Safety Act.

Section 102(3) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) defines a "motor vehicle" as

any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

NHTSA has interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold SOLELY for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining devices) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel.

On the other hand, vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, a utility vehicle like the Jeep is plainly a motor vehicle, even though it is equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, then NHTSA has interpreted the vehicle to be a "motor vehicle." This finding was made with respect to dune buggies, notwithstanding the manufacturers' statements that the vehicles were not intended to be used on the public roads.

NHTSA has also stated in many prior interpretations that even vehicles that will regularly be used on the public roads will not be considered "motor vehicles" for purposes of the Safety Act, if the vehicles have an abnormal body configuration that readily distinguishes them from other highway vehicles AND a maximum speed of 20 mph or less.

Your vehicle is not easily classified under any of these groupings. In such circumstances, we are sometimes able to evaluate factors related to how manufacturers/dealers will advertise, market, and service a particular vehicle in the United States. However, these factors are not relevant where a person is importing a single vehicle for his or her own use. I also note that an individual owner's planned use for a vehicle being imported is not determinative of whether the vehicle is a motor vehicle.

We believe that the relevant factors concerning whether the e-tant is considered a motor vehicle are as follows. First, the e-tant has a body configuration similar to a standard truck. Moreover, in the country where it is manufactured for sale, your letter indicates that the vehicle is used on rural highways to carry crops to market in nearby towns and for visiting friends. In addition, since the e-tant closely resembles a standard small truck, it is likely that states would register it for use on the public highways. The only factor you have identified which suggests that the e-tant should not be considered a motor vehicle is its slow speed, which you believe would be under 20 mph. However, NHTSA does not consider slow speed to be a sufficient factor by itself to take a vehicle which otherwise would be considered a motor vehicle outside of that category. Therefore, after considering all of these factors, it is our opinion that the e-tant would be considered a motor vehicle.

If you have any further questions or need additional information, please contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address.

ID: nht94-3.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 8, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Paul L. Anderson -- President, Van-Con Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 5/19/94 From John Womack To Paul Anderson

TEXT: Dear Mr. Anderson:

This responds to your letter of May 19, 1994, requesting an interpretation of the requirements of S5.5.3(c) of Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release. Section S5.5.3(c) reads:

Each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a minimum 3 centimeters wide retroreflective tape, either red, white or yellow in color . . .

Your letter states that you are unable to continuously outline the perimeter of the rear emergency doors on your school buses due to the proximity of door hinges, tail light lenses, and a rubber gasket between the bottom edge of the door and the bumper. You ask:

Would we be in compliance with Reflective Tape requirements of FMVSS 217 if we put a continuous strip of tape across the top of both Emergency Rear Doors on the roof cap above the doors and down the left and right side of the double door opening with bre aks in the tape for door hinges & tail light lenses. This would outline the Emergency Rear Doors on three sides. No tape would be put across the bottom?

As an alternative, if the above is not acceptable, could we put tape across the bottom on the doors?

As explained below, your planned placement for the top and sides of the door, and your alternative placement for the bottom of the door would be acceptable. In a July 7, 1993 letter to the Blue Bird Body Company, NHTSA stated:

NHTSA interprets S5.5.3(c) to allow interruptions in the tape necessary to avoid and/or accommodate curved surfaces and functional components, such as rivets,

2

rubrails, hinges and handles, provided, however, that the following requisites are met. In the November 2, 1992, final rule, NHTSA indicated that the purpose of the retroreflective tape would be to identify the location of emergency exits to rescuers an d increase the on-the-road conspicuity of the bus. Accordingly, the retroreflective tape may have interruptions if they satisfy both of these purposes. The occasional breaks in the tape you described would not appear to negatively affect a rescuer's ab ility to locate the exits, or reduce the conspicuity of the bus. However, the tape should be applied as near as possible to the exit perimeter . . . When rivets are present, NHTSA will defer to a manufacturer's decision to apply the retroreflective tap e immediately adjacent to the rivets, rather than over the rivets, if the manufacturer decides that this will increase the durability of the tape.

According to this July 1993 letter, interruptions in the retroreflective tape to avoid and/or accommodate hinges (such as the hinge on the side of the rear emergency door) and other functional components are permitted if the interruption does not negativ ely affect a rescuer's ability to locate the exits, or does not reduce the conspicuity of the bus. NHTSA considers tail light lenses to be "functional components" which do not have to be covered by the retroreflective tape. (Indeed, placement of the ta pe on the tail light lense could affect the efficacy of the light.) The interruptions in the tape for these components would not appear to negatively affect a rescuer's ability to locate the exits, or reduce the conspicuity of the bus. Thus, the interru ptions are permitted for the tape along the sides of your door.

With regard to the bottom of your door, based on the pictures provided with your letter, it appears that there is no location available for the placement of retroreflective tape outside of the door's bottom edge. Since not outlining an entire side of an exit might affect a rescuer's ability to locate the exit and would reduce the conspicuity of the exit, the bottom side of the door must be marked with the retroreflective tape. In this situation, NHTSA interprets S5.5.3(c) as allowing placement of the retroreflective tape on the door itself, as near as possible to the lower edge of the door.

3

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,