ID: nht92-5.16

DATE: July 14, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Michael F. Hecker -- Micho Industries

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/8/92 from Michael F. Hecker to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7405)

TEXT:

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

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

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

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

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

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

ID: nht92-5.17

DATE: July 14, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Josefina McCarty

TITLE: None

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation which you made in telephone conversations with Steve Kratzke of my staff. Specifically, you asked if there are requirements for seat belts or any other occupant protection requirements, to protect persons who ride in the cargo beds of pick-up trucks. I am pleased to have this chance to explain our occupant protection requirements for you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), which specifies performance requirements for the protection of vehicle occupants in crashes. Standard No. 208 sets forth occupant crash protection requirements for occupants in vehicles ranging from small cars all the way up to the largest trucks.

In every case, however, the occupant crash protection requirements are directed toward occupants of "designated seating positions." Pickup trucks, for example, are required to be equipped with a seat belt at each and every "designated seating position." The term "designated seating position" is defined at 49 CFR S571.3 as:

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

There are instances where a vehicle manufacturer installs seats in the cargo bed of a pickup truck. For instance, Subaru once made a pickup it called the "Brat," that had two rearward-facing seats installed in the cargo bed of the truck, just behind the passenger compartment. Since these were actually seats, and their design was such that the position was likely to be used as seating while the vehicle was in motion, Subaru was required to install seat belts and comply with other occupant crash protection requirements at such seating positions.

However, the overwhelming majority of pickup trucks do not have any seats installed in the cargo bed. When there are no seats installed in the cargo bed, there are no designated seating positions in the cargo bed. As noted above, the occupant crash protection requirements in Standard No. 208 apply only to seating positions that are "designated seating positions." Since there are no "designated seating positions" in the cargo bed of pickups that do not have any seats installed in the cargo bed, persons that ride in the cargo bed of those pick-ups would not be protected by any of the occupant crash protection features.

ID: nht92-5.18

DATE: July 14, 1992

FROM: Bill Traylor -- President, Waste Processing Equipment, Inc.

TO: Office of Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/4/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Bill Traylor (A39; Part 567)

TEXT:

Enclosed is a blueprint on a private motor coach we are constructing on a WCA Series Volvo GMC Class 8 truck chassis.

Please advise in writing whether or not this vehicle will have to be certified by your administration. If certification is required, please advise as to how and what we do during the construction of the vehicle in order to assure certification.

If you need to discuss this matter by phone, please call me at (205) 638-6355.

A quick response will be appreciated since we are starting construction on or about August 1, 1992.

ID: nht92-5.19

DATE: July 13, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jeffrey Puentes -- President, Sacramento Registration Service

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/2/92 from Jeffrey Puentes to Chief Council, NHTSA (OCC 7402)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for information on laws and regulations administered by this agency that would apply to motorcycle frames, a product that your client wishes to manufacture and sell. Since motorcycle frames would constitute "motor vehicle equipment," the product would be subject to NHTSA's jurisdiction as follows.

Your letter stated that your client intends the frames to be sold to the "retail public" and to be used to replace frames of damaged Harley Davidson motorcycles. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated that your client is a domestic manufacturer, and the term "serial number" in your letter meant vehicle identification numbers (VINs), as specified by this agency.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to regulate "motor vehicles" and items of "motor vehicle equipment." Section 102(4) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(4)) defines "motor vehicle equipment," in part, as:

any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component ...

In your letter, you stated that your client intends its motorcycle frames to be used to replace frames in damaged motorcycles. Thus, the motorcycle frames would be "motor vehicle equipment" since they are "similar parts" that will be "sold for replacement" of a part.

If your client's motorcycle frames should be installed into a motorcycle by a commercial business, Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act could affect such installations. That section of the Act requires manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses to ensure that they do not knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS).

The above-named businesses could sell the motorcycle frames but could not install them if the installation would adversely affect a motorcycle's compliance with any of the applicable FMVSS's. In the first instance, it would be the responsibility of these entities to determine whether there is any possibility of such an effect.

The prohibitions of Section 108(a)(2)(A) do not apply to the actions of a vehicle owner in adding to or otherwise modifying his or her motorcycle. Thus, a motorcycle owner would not violate the Safety Act by replacing the motorcycle

frame, even if doing so would adversely affect some safety feature in his or her motorcycle.

Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as motorcycle frames are also subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. The Safety Act specifies that if either your client's company or this agency determines that a safety-related defect exists in the motorcycle frame, that company as the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the safety-related defect and must either:

(1) repair the product so that the defect is removed; or (2) replace the product with identical or reasonably equivalent products which do not have a defect.

Whichever of these options is chosen, the manufacturer must bear the full expense and cannot charge the owner for the remedy if the equipment was purchased less than 8 years before the notification campaign.

You also asked about vehicle identification numbers (VINs) (referred to in your letter as "serial numbers") and whether motorcycle frames must be identified with VINs. As you may be aware, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115; Vehicle identification number - basic requirements specifies that vehicles manufactured in one or more stages must have a VIN assigned by the manufacturer. Your client is a motorcycle frame manufacturer, not a motor vehicle manufacturer. Therefore, your client should not assign VINs to the motorcycle frames that it manufactures. Please note, however, that NHTSA regulations would not preclude your client from assigning "serial numbers" to the frames it manufactures, if the numbers are for its own inventory, recordkeeping, or other internal purposes.

You further requested information about laws regulating retail businesses that may affect your client. Other than the matters that have previously been discussed in this letter, NHTSA has no laws or regulations affecting your client as a retail business selling motorcycle frames. Regulation of retail businesses is generally a matter of state law. For more specific information, I would suggest you investigate the requirements for each state in which your client intends to begin a retail establishment.

For your information, I have enclosed a copy of an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. This sheet gives a brief description of our regulations and explains how to obtain copies of those regulations. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-5.2

DATE: August 3, 1992

FROM: Gary L. Hopkins -- VP & G.M. Control Systems Products, Bendix Heavy Vehicle Systems

TO: Office of Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: Request for Interpretation - Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 124; Accelerator Control Systems (FMVSS #124)

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/23/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Gary L. Hopkins (A39; Std. 124)

TEXT:

Bendix Heavy Vehicle Systems of Allied-Signal Inc. (BHVS) manufactures electronic treadle assemblies that are utilized by several vehicle manufacturers as a component of their acceleration control system used with electronically controlled diesel engines. The BHVS electronic treadle assembly (see attachment) modulates an electric signal, received from an outside source, in response to the input of the operator's foot. This signal is an input to the engine electronic controller which in turn provides electronic signals that operate the engine fuel injectors to control engine power. (See attached schematic of a typical electronic engine control system).

The scope and requirements of FMVSS #124, which is a standard last updated in 1973, are specific as to the return of the vehicles throttle to the idle position. The BHVS electronic treadle assembly is not a throttle as it is not a component of the fuel metering device, nor is BHVS aware of any component on an electronic controlled diesel engine that is a throttle as defined by the standard. Therefore, it is our interpretation and opinion that FMVSS #124 is not applicable to the BHVS electronic treadle assemblies and electronic controlled diesel engines.

While BHVS has taken the above stated position on the applicability of FMVSS #124, it is recognized that until an appropriate standard is issued good safety design practices shall continue to be applied. Therefore, a malfunction in the accelerator control system that results in loss of vehicle control would be a safety related issue, not a compliance issue.

To be specific, BHVS is hereby requesting confirmation of our position that vehicles equipped with electronic engine control systems of the type as described and depicted in the schematic and which include an electronic treadle assembly are not covered by the scope and requirements of FMVSS #124.

If additional information is necessary, please contact me at (216) 329-9200.

(Drawings omitted)

ID: nht92-5.20

DATE: July 13, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Mark W. Russo

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/27/92 from Mark W. Russo to Charles Gauthier (OCC 7379)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of May 27, 1992, to Mr. Charles Gauthier of this agency, which enclosed a copy of R-Bar test data provided by Micho Industries. You requested an "official 'review and comment'" regarding the applicability of Safety Standard 222 to the R-Bar Passenger Restraint System and related issues.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has addressed the use of "safety bars" in school buses on several occasions in the past. Enclosed for your information are copies of five NHTSA letters which address this subject and which, we believe, will also address your concerns. The letters are addressed to Mr. Michael F. Hecker of Micho Industries, dated May 14, 1992; Mr. Scott K. Hiler of the C. E. White Company, dated January 31, 1991; Honorable Robert J. Lagomarsino, Member of Congress, dated January 8, 1990; and Mr. Joseph F. Mikoll of Transportation Equipment Corporation, dated March 10, 1989 and November 3, 1988.

If, after reviewing the enclosed materials, you still have questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact Mr. Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-5.21

DATE: July 13, 1992

FROM: Carrie Minna

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Consulate, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/31/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Carrie Minna (A39; VSA 102(3))

TEXT:

After making an initial inquiry to the D.O.T regarding my questions, I was referred to you for additional information.

I would like to know if I could import the enclosed vehicles into the U.S. to use in certain communities for transportation. The communities that I would be interested in using these vehicles for would be small guarded gate communities such as Golf resorts, small island communities and possible elderly communities. These communities already utilize golf carts as a means of transportation along with a usual modes of transportation. They would not be used for the main highways although they have the capability of moving at 80KMS per hour. I was also interested in them as a mode of transportation for the island of Santa Catalina off the Southern California coast. This island for many years only had electric vehicles. I believe this vehicle would be an excellent means of transportation for this particular island community.

I have supplied you with some information regarding these vehicles. I am contacting the company that manufactures the engine to see if it meets with the E.P.A. standards for the U.S.

Any information you can provide me would be most helpful.

I await your response.

(Brochure omitted)

ID: nht92-5.22

DATE: July 10, 1992

FROM: David H. Milligan; Thomas H. Milligan; Alisa A. Milligan -- Millco Mfg.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/22/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to David H. Milligan (A39; Std. 213)

TEXT:

We would first like to acknowledge the assistance of your department up to this point and thank them for the advice and direction they have given to us. Jeff Michael has proved invaluable, as well as Dee Fujita and Joanne Murianka who have also given us much help.

As you can see from the enclosed sample, it is the result of many inquiries and needs of the consumer. Our product will take the place of the many home remedies for the existing problem (ie. Blocks of wood, rolled up towels, PVC pipe, etc.) which can prove dangerous if not deadly.

We've taken many precautions already with this project such as flame retardancy, soft yet dense foam, and liability insurance.

What we would like to ask of you is a letter stating that "The Car Seat Support" manufactured by Millco Mfg. for distribution by Rumble Tuff Mfg. does not infringe upon any existing regulations for car seat accessories.

Your immediate attention will be greatly appreciated.

ID: nht92-5.23

DATE: July 9, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Hank Hessey -- Hebco Products, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/21/92 from Hank Hessey to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7242)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking for our opinion on the "requirements and testing responsibilities" that apply to air brake hose manufacturers under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 106, Brake Hoses. After receiving your letter, Ms. Fujita of my staff telephoned you to clarify our understanding of your question.

You explained in the telephone conversation that your concern relates to the certification responsibilities of a brake hose manufacturer versus those of a brake hose assembly manufacturer. You are particularly interested in the standard's burst strength (S7.3.9) and tensile strength requirements (7.3.10). You ask whether it is the hose manufacturer or the assembly manufacturer, or both, who must certify to those requirements.

Standard 106 places the responsibility for certifying to S7.3.9 and 7.3.10 on the assembly manufacturer, not the hose manufacturer. Both S7.3.9 and 7.3.10 apply, by their terms, to the "assembly." S7.3.9 states: "An air brake hose assembly shall not rupture when exposed to hydrostatic pressure of 800 psi...." Similarly, S7.3.10 states: "An air brake hose assembly" shall meet the tensile strength requirement. Thus, neither S7.3.9 nor 7.3.10 apply to the hose."

The wording of the test procedures for S7.3.9 and 7.3.10 reflect the fact that those sections apply to the assembly only. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration follows the procedures described in the Federal motor vehicle safety standards when conducting compliance tests. The procedures for both sections refer to a test of the "assembly," not the "hose." The burst strength procedure, specified in S8.8 of Standard 106, expressly states: "Utilize an air brake hose assembly." Similarly, the tensile strength procedure, specified in S8.9, expressly states: "Attach an air brake hose assembly to the testing machine...." Neither of these procedures specify testing of the "hose" apart from the assembly.

Because S7.2.9 and 7.3.10 apply to the assembly, the assembly manufacturer is responsible for a failure to comply with S7.3.9 and 7.3.10, even if the failure is due to a deficiency with the hose. It is the responsibility of the assembly manufacturer to ensure that the products used in the manufacture of the assembly will enable it to meet all applicable requirements of Standard 106.

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

ID: nht92-5.24

DATE: July 9, 1992

FROM: Tilman (Tilghman) Spingler -- Robert Bosch GmbH

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA Administration

TITLE: Request for Interpretation

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/3/92 from Paul J. Rice to Tilghman (Tilman) Spingler (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

FMVSS 108 requires for Replaceable Bulb Headlamps a vertical aim range of > +/- 4 degrees and a horizontal aim range of > +/- 2.3 degrees. Does this mean that a headlamp has to meet both ranges in addition, i.e. 2.5 degrees horizontal at a full range of 4 degrees vertical and vice-versa? Would it be possible to give me a "quick" answer by fax?