ID: nht91-4.50

DATE: July 16, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Allen I. Swenson -- The Compliance Group, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-23-91 from Allen I. Swenson to Robert F. Helmuth (OCC 6085)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to Robert Hellmuth, the Director of NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, seeking information about a recent amendment requiring lap/shoulder belts to be installed at rear outboard seating positions in light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles. You were particularly interested in the requirements for readily removable seats at such positions. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulation to you.

As you correctly noted, NHTSA published a final rule on July 30, 1990 (55 FR 30914), addressing requirements for lap/shoulder belts to be installed in all forward-facing rear outboard seating positions in light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles. That July 30 final rule specifically addressed the issue of lap/shoulder belts at readily removable seats (that is, seats designed to be easily removed and replaced by means installed by the manufacturer for that purpose). In response to a petition by Ford, the agency included the following discussion in the preamble to the July 30 rule (see 55 FR 30914, at 30916-30917):

. . . These vehicles do not currently use, nor did Ford plan to begin using, a release mechanism that complies with the requirements that are scheduled to take effect on September 1, 1991, Accordingly, Ford will need to make the changes described in its petition. NHTSA has concluded that an additional year of leadtime is needed to allow Ford to make the necessary changes. Therefore, this notice delays the requirement for rear seat lap/shoulder belts to be installed at outboard seating positions on readily removable seats for one year, so that it now applies to vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1992.

Hence, outboard seating positions on readily removable seats in light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles are not required to be equipped with lap/shoulder belts until September 1, 1992. Before that date, those seating positions may be equipped with either lap-only belts or with lap/shoulder belts, at the manufacturer's option.

I hope this information is useful. If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of this office at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: aiam0310

Dear Mr. Caine: This is in reply to your letters of February 9 and February 17, 1971 requesting a clarification of the applicability of Part 574, the Tire Identification and Record Keeping regulation, to changeover tires.; In your letters you suggest that, for purposes of Part 574, changeove tires should be considered as used tires, because (1) as a legal matter title to both the vehicle at the time of purchase, (2) tire dealers generally accept changeover tires with less than 100 miles of use as trade-in tires, (3) changeover tires are considered to be used tires by the Federal Trade Commission, and (4) in most cases the tire manufacturer will not have direct contact with the tire dealer selling the changeover tires after they have been traded in by the vehicle purchaser.; We have carefully considered these points, and have determined tha Part 574 is nevertheless applicable to changeover tires.; Part 574 is an integral part of the enforcement scheme for complianc with the standards and the requirements with respect to safety-related defects, and as such its coverage is intended to be coextensive with the applicability of the standards. Section 108(a) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits the manufacture for sale, sale, or offering for sale of tires which do not conform to applicable standards. Although the Act provides that this prohibition shall not apply after the first purchase, it specifically limits this exemption to purchases made 'in good faith for purposes other than resale.' Therefore, the fact that title to original-equipment tires has passed to the vehicle purchaser is not controlling, because in these cases the purchaser intends to exchange the tires--that is, he is purchasing them for the purpose of reselling them, not for using them.; If the standard were not applicable to changeover tires, tire dealer could with impunity alter these tires in a manner that would make them unsafe. A case in point is the known practice whereby dealers alter the sidewalls of tires, often changeover tires, by cutting out a groove and laminating a whitewall surface to the surface of the tire.; Another policy reason for applying Part 574 to changeover tires i that, from a safety standpoint, the person who actually is using the changeover tires on his vehicle should be the one who is notified in the event the tires are suspected of being defective.; We recognize that the Federal Trade Commission does not allo changeover tires to be sold as new tires. That agency is, however, primarily concerned with fraudulent sales, an area of concern much different from ours. The difference in the definitional categories used by the two agencies is, we feel, fully justified by their different missions.; With regard to your point that the manufacturer of the changeover tire would not have direct contact with the dealer who sells the changeover tires, I will simply say that this is true in many situations with regard to tire distribution, and we do not consider it sufficient grounds to make the regulation inapplicable to changeover tires. It does not appear to be an undue hardship for a tire dealer to obtain a form and forward the information concerning the purchaser of the tire to the tire manufacturer.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: nht90-3.72

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 30, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Richard E. Portors -- Vice President and General Manager, Royale Limousine Manufacturers

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-5-90 from R.E. Portors to Z.R. Fraser; Also attached to Federal Register, section 571.108, 49 CFR Ch.V (10-1-85 Edition), page 218 (text omitted)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your FAX of April 5, 1990, to Zachary R. Fraser of this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, requesting confirmation of your interpretation of a requirement applicable to center highmounted stop lamps. You attached a copy of the requirements for our convenience.

Section S5.1.1.41(a) of Standard No. 108 (S4.1.1.41(a) in your copy) requires the center lamp to have an effective projected luminous area of not less than 4 1/2 square inches. You report that the lamp on the 1990 Cadillac measures 6 square inches in ar ea. When a boomerang TV antenna is installed, the shaft area displaces 1.125 square inches of area which would leave an exposed area of 4 7/8" of light and would exceed the minimum requirements of section (a)." You further state that subsection (b) (re lating to visibility of signal throughout the horizontal angle from 45 degrees right to left of the longitudinal axis of the vehicle) would not be affected. Further, "without window glazing", section (c) relating to compliance with the photometrics of F igure 10, would not be affected either, in your opinion.

First, we note that your interpretation of subsection (a) is not correct. The effective projected luminous lens area of the lamp remains at 6 square inches, because no modifications are performed on the lamp that affect the lens itself. The question for compliance is whether the photometric requirements of subsection (c) are met. We do not understand your phrase "without window glazing", as compliance is determined with the back window in place. However, in our experience, a TV boomerang antenna is, like the lamp, mounted on the vertical centerline of the vehicle, usually the rear deck. In this position, even a shaft that displaces 1.125 square inch of area will block the light from the lamp at test point H-V, and the lamp will not comply with the photometric requirements of "Figher 10, as specified by subsection (c). Therefore, we cannot concur in your interpretation that the design you describe "would not affect the requirements of 571.108."

ID: 20778.drn

Jacqueline Glassman, Esq.
Senior Staff Counsel
DaimlerChrysler Corporation
1000 Chrysler Drive   CIMS 485-14-18
Auburn Hills, MI 48326-2766






Dear Ms. Glassman:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of S4.5 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114, Theft Protection. I apologize for the delay in responding. You ask whether a warning referenced in S4.5 is required when the driver's door is opened and the metal key is in the "accessory" position of a vehicle's ignition switch when that position is not between the "on" and "lock" positions. Our answer is yes.

The purpose of Standard No. 114 is to reduce the incidence of crashes resulting from unauthorized operation of a motor vehicle, and from the rollaway of parked vehicles with automatic transmissions as a result of children moving the shift mechanism out of the "park" position. To further these purposes, S4.5 of the standard provides that: "A warning to the driver shall be activated whenever the key required by S4.2 has been left in the locking system and the driver's door is opened." ⁽¹⁾ The purpose of the provision is to prevent, as far as possible, drivers from inadvertently leaving the key in the ignition lock when the car is unoccupied. See, e.g., 34 FR 9342 (June 13, 1969).

There are three exceptions to the general requirement of S4.5 that a warning must be activated whenever the key has been left in the locking system and the driver's door is opened. The exceptions set forth in S4.5(a) through (c), which were promulgated after the general requirement was adopted, provide that the warning to the driver need not operate:

(a) After the key has been manually withdrawn to a position from which it may not be turned;

(b) When the key-locking system is in the "on" or "start" position; or

(c) After the key has been inserted in the locking system and before it has been turned.

Your letter refers to vehicles manufactured by DaimlerChrysler in which the warning referenced in S4.5 does not operate when the key is in the "accessory" position. A drawing you provided of the ignition switch system in these vehicles shows the ignition switch aperture in the center, surrounded by the positions, in clockwise order from the left, "accessory" (at approximately the 7:00 position, if you imagine the round aperture as the face of a clock), "lock" (at 9:00), "off" (at 11:00), "on" (at 1:00), and "start" (at 2:00).

Your letter asserts that "the key is removed from the key locking system when it is turned to the 'accessory' position of the ignition switch." You suggest that this is because the key, in the "accessory" position, "does not permit normal activation of the vehicle's engine or motor, nor does it permit steering or forward self-mobility of the vehicle" (you refer to the words of S4.2 of the standard, which states that removal of the key must have such an effect on the vehicle). Yet you acknowledge that the key remains in the ignition switch.

We do not agree that the key has been withdrawn from the key-locking system when it is in the "accessory" position. The fact that the key would have to be turned to activate the engine or to allow steering or forward self-mobility does not mean that the key is not in the key-locking system. The key would also have to be turned from the "lock" position, which you acknowledge is part of the key-locking system. Similarly, the fact that the "accessory" position is beyond the "lock" position is irrelevant, since the standard does not refer to the relative locations of the various positions in a key-locking system. The risks that Standard No. 114 is designed to protect against (theft and rollaway) are no less real when the key is in the "accessory" position than when it is left in other positions in the vehicle's ignition switch.

In asserting that the key-locking system includes only positions between "on" and "lock," you quote the following sentences from the preamble to the amendment to Standard No. 114 that added the exceptions to S4.5 (34 FR 9342, 9343 (June 13, 1969)):

It was the purpose of this provision to require activation of the warning device whenever the key is left in the lock in a position from which the lock can be turned. Once the driver has withdrawn the key beyond the position, he is presumably aware of the location of the key, and no warning need be given to him. (Your emphasis.)

However, contrary to your assertion, this language demonstrates that the standard applies when a key is left in the "accessory" position, since it is not disputed that "the lock can be turned" from that position. Indeed, the Federal Register notice from which you quote specifically refers to a situation when ". . . the key is so far removed as to be dangling from the locking mechanism" (34 FR at 9343), a position from which it could not be turned at all. Further, to the extent that your letter could be construed as suggesting that the exemption in S4.5(a) applies to this situation, we interpret the phrase "has been manually withdrawn" in S4.5(a) as referring to the action of removing, or attempting to remove, a key from the switch (resulting in, for example, a dangling key), not the turning of the key to a position that is within the switch, such as the "accessory" position. Interpreting the wording this way is consistent with the purposes of the amendment and with the standard itself.

NHTSA's denial of a 1969 petition for rulemaking from General Motors (GM) to amend the S4.5(a) exemption is illustrative. GM wanted us to allow the warning to be inoperative "after the key has been manually withdrawn from the normal operating position." It sought the amendment because on some then-manufactured GM vehicles, a driver could manipulate the ignition key into a position at which the warning buzzer would be deactivated, but the key would be able to turn the lock.

In denying GM's petition, NHTSA stated that the suggested amendment was contrary to the purpose of the requirement, which was:

. . . to make it virtually impossible for a driver inadvertently to leave his key in the ignition lock when he exits and thereby to reduce car thefts along with the high potential for accidental injury and death that stolen cars have. If it were possible for a driver to manipulate the key so as to render the warning inoperative while, at the same time, to continue to operate the vehicle with the key in the lock, the salutary purpose of the warning requirement would be defeated.

34 FR 19547 (December 11, 1969).

You present an analogous situation. A key in the "accessory" position is a "key in the lock." Allowing the warning to be inoperative in such a position, from which the key may be turned, would be contrary to the purpose of the warning requirement.

We also note that the legal position that you advocate in your letter is belied by the long-standing understanding by Chrysler Corporation (a predecessor of DaimlerChrysler) of the requirements of Standard No. 114. For example, Compliance Procedure CP-383, issued on February 18, 1988, "describes the method to be used in verifying compliance of the ignition and steering column key in-lock warning with the vehicle theft protection requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (MVSS) 114 . . . ." That document states, "The Warning [to the driver] must operate when the ignition key is in the accessory, lock or off positions." (boldface type and underlining in original).

Similarly, DaimlerChrysler's Manufacturing Assurance Standards Safety/Emissions (MASSE) 11-3002, entitled "Seat Belt and Key-In Lock Warning Systems - All Vehicles," specifies in Section 1.1 (which explicitly refers to Standard No. 114), "A warning to the driver will be activated whenever the ignition key has been left in the locking system, the ignition is in the "OFF", "LOCK", or "ACC" position and the driver's door is opened." This is reiterated in the "Manufacturing Assurance Requirements," of MASSE 11-3002, which state (in Section 2.2) that the applicable "Vehicle Conditions" include placing the "Ignition key in ignition and in 'OFF' or 'Accessory' position." Moreover, the "Verification Sequence" for this requirement described in Section 2.3 specifies the following procedure: "Open the driver's door. THE BUZZER OR CHIME SHOULD ACTIVATE AN AUDIBLE WARNING." (emphasis in original). Thus, Chrysler's Compliance Procedure and MASSE unequivocally demonstrate that the company has long understood that Standard No. 114 applies when the key is left in the "accessory" position.

Ultimately, even apart from DaimlerChrysler's past understanding and its internal documents, the position advocated in your letter is inconsistent with common sense and experience. One primary purpose of the "accessory" position in automobiles is to allow drivers who have reached their destination to listen to the radio or perform a task requiring use of the vehicle's electrical system without running the engine. It is certainly foreseeable that a forgetful driver in that situation might inadvertently leave the key in the vehicle upon exiting if he or she were not alerted by a warning. It was to prevent such an occurrence that Standard No. 114 was adopted.

If you need further assistance, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.





Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel





ref:114
d.9/25/00

---

1. S4.2 requires each vehicle to have a key-locking system that, whenever the key is removed, prevents: (a) the normal activation of the vehicle's engine or motor; and (b) either steering or forward self-mobility of the vehicle or both.

ID: 2892o

Mr. Jim Schuld
Mill Supply Inc.
3241 Superior Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44114

Dear Mr. Schuld:

This responds to your letter asking for information concerning the application of Federal safety standards to your manufacture of a jump seat that you said would be "removable and able to be transferred from one truck to another." I apologize for the delay in responding. Generally, Federal motor vehicle seating standards apply to motor vehicles prior to their first purchase by a consumer, and not to "aftermarket" seating components added to a vehicle after such purchase. However, several of our safety standards could apply to your product if the seat is installed in a new vehicle prior to the vehicle's first sale to a consumer. Federal law would also affect your installation of the jump seat in new or used vehicles.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with our Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Instead, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed), each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the information provided in your letter.

There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that is directly applicable to a removable jump seat sold directly to a consumer. Federal seating standards generally apply only to completed new motor vehicles and not to items of equipment such as a removable jump seat. However, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your jump seats contain a safety related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

If your product will be installed on a new vehicle prior to the vehicle's first sale to a consumer, then the manufacturer of the vehicle will have certain responsibilities relating to its obligation under the Safety Act to certify the new vehicle as meeting all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Federal standards for seating systems (Standard No. 207) and crash protection (Standard No. 208) apply to designated seating positions in new vehicles. While these standards do not apply to auxiliary seating accommodations (e.g., temporary or folding jump seats), the determination must be made whether your apparatus falls into this latter category and is thus excluded from coverage. Unfortunately, information provided in your letter did not describe your jump seat in sufficient detail for us to offer an opinion as to whether your particular seat is an auxiliary seating accommodation. Photographs or engineering diagrams of your product would assist us in determining whether the seat would be considered an auxiliary seating accommodation, and thus excluded from coverage under Standard Nos. 207 and 208 if installed on new vehicles.

Another Federal standard to which the vehicle manufacturer must certify its vehicle as conforming is Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. This standard establishes flammability requirements that must be met by certain vehicle components including seat cushions and seat backs on any occupant seat installed in a new vehicle prior to the vehicle's first sale to a consumer. A manufacturer installing your jump seat on a new vehicle would thus be required to ensure that any seat cushion or seat back on your product conforms to the flammability resistance requirements of the standard.

You should also be aware that there are statutory considerations that affect the installation of your jump seats in new and used vehicles. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act specifies: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall 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 ..." This section requires manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair businesses (i.e., any person holding him or herself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation) installing the jump seat to ensure that the addition of the apparatus would not negatively affect the compliance of any component or design on a vehicle with applicable Federal safety standards. For example, the commercial entity must ensure that the addition of the jump seat does not degrade from the safety of existing seating or occupant protection systems on the vehicle. Section 109 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of 108.

In summary, removable jump seats sold to motor vehicle owners as items of aftermarket equipment are not subject to any Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The seat could be subject to Federal standards for seating performance and occupant crash and flammability protection if it is installed on new vehicles prior to the vehicle's first sale. Commercial businesses are prohibited from installing the jump seat if the result renders inoperative the compliance of requisite safety components or designs with Federal safety standards. Individual owners, however, are not covered by 108(a)(2)(A) and may themselves install the jump seat in their vehicles without regard to the rendering inoperative prohibition of the Safety Act. To repeat, you as the equipment manufacturer would be obligated to recall and remedy seats that contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety, even if the seats were installed by vehicle owners themselves.

Please feel free to contact us if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:207#302 d:8/26/88

ID: 11417LOR.D2

Mr. John Lord
The Booster Seat Company Ltd.
P.O. Box 15-573, New Lynn, Auckland
New Zealand

Dear Mr. Lord:

This responds to your letter asking about S5.5.1(a) in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, AChild Restraint Systems.@ I apologize for the delay in responding.

As discussed below, it is our opinion, based on the information in your letter, that your child restraint would not meet S5.1.1(a).

Background You state in your letter that your company has developed a child restraint system which conforms to an Australian child seat standard. A U.S. company wishes to manufacture and sell the child seat in the United States. You have had the child seat dynamically tested in the U.S., and believe that the seat achieved Avery favorable results@ with regard to the injury criteria of Standard 213. However, S5.5.1(a) of the standard was a problem.

Section S5.1.1 sets forth requirements for child restraint system integrity. Paragraph (a) of that section states that when dynamically tested, each child restraint shall:

Exhibit no complete separation of any load bearing structural element and no partial separation exposing either surfaces with a radius of less than 1/4 inch or surfaces with protrusions greater than 3/8 inch above the immediate adjacent surrounding contactable surface of any structural element of the system . . . .

Your child seat, a belt-positioning seat under S4 of Standard 213, consists of a high density polystyrene (commonly called

Astyrofoam@) platform, covered by a foam seat cover. The platform raises a child occupant approximately four to five inches to better fit a vehicle=s Type II belt system. The styrofoam platform also has arm rests formed into it.

The child seat cracked during the dynamic test of Standard 213. You sent us a child seat showing the cracks. However, you believe the cracking of the seat should not be considered to be a violation of S5.1.1(a) because, in your opinion, it does not pose a safety problem:

Clearly cracking/splitting on blow molded plastic possesses a serious safety issue with the possibility of pinching, cutting, or stabbing the child. We are confident that polystyrene possess [sic] no such problem. By nature, all cracked edges are soft. In addition, the product is sold with a 3/8" (10mm) foam seat cover.

Discussion

After reviewing your submissions and other information, our answer is that the child seat would not meet S5.1.1(a). Because the cracks occurred in a load bearing structural element of the child seat, S5.1.1(a) applies. Each crack is a Apartial separation exposing . . . surfaces with a radius of less than 1/4 inch . . . ,@ which is prohibited by S5.1.1(a).

This interpretation limits a previous agency interpretation of S5.1.1(a). In NHTSA=s July 8, 1988 letter to Mr. Donald Friedman of Liability Research, Inc. (copy enclosed), the agency addressed whether edges exposed by the tearing of a restraint that was made of woodfiber violated S5.1.1(a), when the edges exposed by the tearing were not lacerating (due to the composition of the material) and not likely to come into contact with the infant. NHTSA said that S5.1.1(a) did not prohibit the tearing because:

. . . In the preamble of [the rulemaking document proposing the requirement], we stated that our objectives in promulgating the system integrity requirements were to prevent a child=s excessive excursion or ejection from the system, and to ensure that the system does not fracture or separate in such a way as to harm the child. (43 FR 21470, 21473.) (Emphasis in text.)

In the Friedman letter, NHTSA focused on the highlighted text, stating that any partial separation resulting from the dynamic test Amust not expose surfaces with sharp edges that may contact the child.@ The agency did not examine the effect of partial separations on the structural integrity of the system. Nevertheless, the agency acknowledged that, @In promulgating S5.1.1(a), the agency intended to minimize dangers resulting from failures in the structural integrity of the system, rather than failures in the materials.@

Your child restraint is formed from a single piece of styrofoam; there is no reinforcement of any kind. As you note, due to the material comprising the restraint, the child restraint Ais inclined to crack.@ With your child restraint, a failure in the material results in a failure in the structural integrity of the system. While the edges formed by the partial separations you identified might not form Asharp@ edges, the partial separations are an indication that the structural integrity of the restraint has not been maintained. Thus, we conclude that the restraint would not meet the requirements of S5.1.1(a).

I hope this answers your inquiry. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:213 d:5/3/96

ID: aiam5283

"Dear Mr. Gerrity: This responds to your letter, forward to us o December 9, 1993, by Representative Harris W. Fawell, regarding the removal of the air bag in your 1990 Coupe de Ville. Because you have a physical handicap, you had your vehicle modified by the installation of a hand control system over the steering wheel. You are concerned that, in the event the air bag should activate, the steering device would probably pop off causing serious injury. You also stated that dealers and other mechanics are reluctant to disconnect the air bag because of Federal law. As discussed below, in certain limited situations, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has exercised its discretion in enforcing our regulations to provide some allowance when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities. While the disconnection of an air bag by a dealer or motor vehicle repair business would ordinarily be a violation of Federal law, this is to advise you that this agency would not institute enforcement proceedings against a dealer or repair business that disconnected the driver side air bag in your vehicle. If you show this letter to your dealer or mechanic, you should be able to get this work performed. By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses modifying certified vehicles are affected by 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. It prohibits those businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any elements of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with a safety standard. Removal or disconnection of an air bag by any of the named commercial entities would violate the 'render inoperative' prohibition, since air bags are installed to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. However, in certain situations where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, NHTSA has been willing to consider any violation of 108(a)(2)(A) a purely technical one justified by public need, and indicated that it would not institute enforcement proceedings. We will take this position for the specific factual situation cited above. We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made. For example, S4.5.2 of Standard No. 208 requires a readiness indicator for an air bag system which is clearly visible from the driver's seating position. After the air bag is removed, this indicator would show that the air bag system is not operative. The readiness indicator should not be modified, so other drivers who may expect an air bag will be aware that the air bag is not functional. I would also like to caution your dealer or mechanic to contact the vehicle manufacturer concerning the proper procedure for any air bag disconnection as this procedure could cause it to deploy and injure the mechanic. As a final caution, I note that the purpose of the 'render inoperative' provision is to ensure, to the degree possible, that current and subsequent owners and users of a vehicle are not deprived of the maximum protection afforded by the vehicle as newly manufactured. Your letter states that you would have the air bag reconnected before selling the car. I urge you to have this work performed so that future users of the vehicle will have the protection the air bag affords. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel cc: Representative Harris W. Fawell United States House of Representatives 2342 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515-1313";

ID: nht90-4.75

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 5, 1990

FROM: Susan J. Otjen -- Spill Response Project, State Fire Marshal, State of Oregon

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-5-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Susan J. Otjen (A37; Std. 208)

TEXT:

The State of Oregon, Office of the State Fire Marshal, is currently involved in setting up Regional Hazardous Material Emergency Response Teams around the state. At this time we have a bid out for Hazardous Material Emergency Response Vehicles. The spe cifications for that vehicle include a forward command center with a bench seat and seat belts for four passengers, also a seat with belt at the command center desk. I have received a call from a vendor who is concerned that this specification does not meet the regulations set out in Title 49. He was concerned that a crash test would be required in order to certify this seating arrangement.

I spoke recently with Mr. Charles Gathier, a technical specialist with the Office of Vehicle Safety Standards. He stated that limited production vehicles were exempt from these regulations. Also, that these regulations pertained only to the driver in v ehicle with a GVW of over 10,000 lbs. When I requested written documentation of this information, he directed me to Steve Wood of your office.

Mr. Wood suggested that I contact you directly with my request for written clarification of this question. I have enclosed a copy of the vehicle specifications for your information.

I would appreciate clarification on this matter. If you have any further questions, please contact me at (503) 373-1126. The bid closing date is set for December 11, 1990. We would like to be able to award the bid as soon as possible due to the extend ed delivery date for this type vehicle. Thank you for your prompt attention and assistance.

Attachment

SPECIFICATIONS

1. GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS:

A. It is the intent of these specifications to provide the State of Oregon, Office of the State Fire Marshal with Hazardous Material Emergency Response Vehicles.

B. The apparatus shall be constructed with due consideration to nature and distribution of the load to be sustained and the general character of the service which the apparatus is to be subjected when placed in service.

All parts of the apparatus shall be strong enough to withstand the general service under full load. The apparatus shall be so designed that the various parts are readily accessible for lubrication, inspection, adjustment and repair.

C. Details of construction and materials, not otherwise specified, are left to the discretion of the contractor, who shall be solely responsible for the design and construction of all features. The construction and materials must meet or exceed all stan dards set by N.F.P.A. 1901 and other mandatory regulatory standards. Contractor must be able to supply any certifications required by D.O.T. prior to award of bid.

D. Each bidder shall make statements in his proposal; principle dimensions, weight distribution of the fully loaded, completed vehicle.

E. Bidder must submit a proposal in full detail which covers the complete construction of the apparatus he proposes to furnish. Each bidder shall make accurate statements in his specifications as to weight, wheelbase, and principal dimensions. The bidd er shall furnish drawings and photographs of the bid apparatus with his bid, giving detail body compartments, sizes, and locations. These drawings will not preclude the necessity for the bidder to submit in writing any exceptions to these specifications .

F. Each bid shall be accompanied by a detailed description of the apparatus and equipment which it is proposed to furnish and to which the apparatus furnished under the contract must conform. It is the intent of these specifications to cover the furnish ing and delivering to the purchaser a complete and soundly-engineered apparatus equipped as hereinafter specified. Material thickness specified is the minimum to be accepted.

G. No experimental apparatus shall be considered. Each bid shall be accompanied by a statement covering the past two (2) year period giving locations where fire apparatus of like specifications have been sold by the manufacturer who is submitting the bi d.

H. Manufacturer shall furnish satisfactory evidence of his ability to construct the apparatus specified and shall state the location of the factory where the apparatus is manufactured. The manufacturer shall also state the number of years he has been bu ilding fire apparatus. Factory location must be within the continental U.S.A.

I. As a condition of the acceptance of the apparatus, the contractor shall furnish a comprehensive guarantee of the apparatus and equipment for ten (10) years. All warranty's must be supplied with the bid.

J. The manufacturer shall defend any and all suits, and assume all liability for any claims against the purchaser, or any of its officials or agents for the use of any patented process, device, or articles forming a part of the apparatus or any appliance furnished under the contract.

K. Total price on bidder's proposal sheet must include all items listed in these specifications. Listing any items contained in our specifications

as an extra cost item will automatically be cause for rejection.

L. Bidder's proposal must clearly list in detail all items requested in our specifications. Literature which conflicts with our specifications in material used or equipment to be supplied, will be cause for automatic rejection.

M. Contractor shall be responsible for having complied with the following: Dealer supplying equipment to this specification shall be responsible for having complied with all Federal and State safety and regulatory standards, applicable and effective on t he date of acceptance. Dealer must be licensed to do business in the State of Oregon.

N. Prior to preparation of the Purchase Order to the lowest qualified bidder, the Office of the State Fire Marshal may require a complete review of the bidder's ordering data and the agencies purchase specifications to insure that the ordering data fulfi lls the specification requirements.

If the conference is required, it will be held at the Office of the State Fire Marshal, 3000 Market Street Plaza, Salem, Oregon, in order to accomplish a thorough point-by-point understanding in obtaining a final product that complies with the purchase s pecification requirements.

NOTE: Contractors are required to respond to each item listed below. Failure to do so may result in rejection of the bid.

Attached are Dimensional Specifications; Chassis Specifications; Chassis Modification; Body Construction; Electrical; and Compartmentation check-off forms and engineering drawing. (Text and graphics omitted)

VII WARRANTY

1. A submission of a bid in response to this Invitation to Bid shall constitute the manufacturer's and bidder's warranty and ALL components, parts and accessories for a period of not less than one (1) year or 12,000 miles, whichever comes first after th e "in service date". The portions of the standard warranty on the truck chassis or any of the components that exceed these requirements shall apply. Each unit shall carry the manufacturers service and warranty policy in conjunction with the purchaser's stated warranty policy and shall include all inspection coupons, certicards or warranty identification cards furnished to the general trade. Said warranty shall be honored by all franchised dealers of that make in the State of Oregon.

2. If all or any parts of this unit should prove defective in workman- ship or materials, the manufacturer or bidders shall replace or repair the part or defect without cost to the State of Oregon.

3. The warranty shall exclude such components as batteries, tires and light, bulbs, except as warranted by the manufacturer of said items. It shall also exclude damage to the unit due to operator's abuse.

4. Warranty adjustments will not necessarily be confined to the above limits. Malfunction of parts or failures discovered beyond the above warranty period, which are reasonably attributable to a manufacturing fault not revealed during the initial perio d, shall be corrected at no cost, or on a cost-sharing basis, depending on the individual case.

5. The vendor shall not be responsible for damages caused by delay or failure to perform under the terms of the warranty where such delay or failure is due to strikes, Acts of God, legal acts of public authority or demands of the Government in time of w ar or national emergency.

6. The bidder shall be responsible for all warranty adjustments.

VIII DELIVERY REQUIREMENTS

1. All "make ready" services shall be performed prior to delivery. The vehicle shall be delivered ready to use.

2. Each vehicle shall have an operator's manual and other information and instructions.

3. At the time of, or before delivery, the following shall be furnished (in addition to the above):

(a) Two (2) current shop repair manuals covering ALL components and including electrical schematics.

(b) Two (2) current parts catalogs covering ALL components.

(c) Two (2) operator's manuals.

ALL - means the primary unit and any auxiliary equipment or components added to the truck to meet the requirements of this specification.

4. All manuals and catalogs shall be shall be individually assembled and bound.

5. Three complete sets of keys for all locks shall be furnished with each unit.

ID: nht79-4.30

DATE: 05/09/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: Department of Education; Oregon

COPYEE: FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY STEPHEN P. WOOD

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 6, 1979, letter asking several questions about the applicability of the school bus safety standards to van-type vehicles.

First, you ask whether a vehicle that transports more than 10 persons and is constructed in accordance with the school bus safety standards must be painted, lighted and marked as a school bus. As you know, Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17 formerly permitted Type II school vehicles, under 16 passengers, to be marked, painted, and lighted at the option of the school district. As a result of the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-492), all school buses must be equipped with school bus lights. Since they must have lights, they must also be painted and marked as school buses. Therefore, all school vehicles carrying more than 10 persons must be properly painted, marked and lighted.

In your second question you ask whether a school can purchase and use a noncomplying used van manufactured after April 1, 1977. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulates, for the most part, vehicles up to the point of first purchase. Therefore, the sale of a noncomplying used vehicle would be beyond the control of this agency. However, we caution schools purchasing such vehicles that they may be unable to insure them, and they may be responsible for significantly increased liability in the event of an accident. Further, we encourage States not to license such vehicles for the transportation of school children.

Third, you ask whether the standard applies to leased or rented vehicles. The answer to your question is yes. Part 571.3 of our regulations (49 CFR 571) defines school bus as "a bus that is sold, or introduced in interstate commerce, . . . " The phrase introduced in interstate commerce includes the lease or rental of vehicles for school use. Since these leased or rented vehicles are considered school buses, they must comply with the safety standards.

In your fourth question, you ask whether a contractor or school can remove seats from a van that it inadvertently purchased so that as modified it will transport 10 or fewer persons. A school or contractor can modify its own vehicles any way that it chooses. A dealer, manufacturer, or repair business, on the other hand, cannot alter a vehicle in any manner that would render inoperative its compliance with Federal safety standards. The agency notes that if a school removes seats from the van in the manner suggested in your letter, the van would no longer be required to comply with the school bus safety standards. However, a new van-type vehicle that transports 10 or fewer persons must comply with safety standards applicable to multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV). Your modified vehicle probably would not comply with these MPV requirements. You should remember that the operation of a noncomplying school bus or a noncomplying MPV does not subject a school to liability to the NHTSA.

However, a school's private liability in the event of an accident might be increased.

In your final question, you ask whether the NHTSA is enforcing the school bus regulations. The agency has taken extensive steps to enforce its school bus regulations. These include a major testing program of buses manufactured in compliance with the standards. As a result of these tests, some noncompliances have been determined and some remedies have occurred. With respect to the sale of vans as school vehicles, the agency has warned many dealers of the illegality of this practice, and in most instances, these dealers have repurchased the vehicles that were sold in violation of the law.

We encourage States to adopt licensing practices that ensure that vehicles used to transport school children and manufactured after April 1, 1977, comply with the safety standards. Many States now have such licensing programs, and the problem of van misuse is rapidly diminishing in those areas. We further encourage States to report instances of violations to our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. That Office will take the necessary steps to enforce the law.

SINCERELY,

STATE OF OREGON

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

April 6, 1979

Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

RE: Redifinition of a "School Bus" Standard

Dear Sir:

Since April 1977, when many of the school bus safety standards became effective, we have had a difficult time understanding the extent of the applicability of the standards to the van type vehicles. There has been a great deal of confusion and misunderstanding by various segments of pupil transportation and many have requested clarification from this department on the rules.

In the past few months we have been asked several questions which we have not felt qualified to answer. School districts, bus contractors, and bus body and chassis dealers have repeatedly requested this information. We would appreciate it very much if we could receive answers to the following questions.

1. Can a vehicle that has a capacity of more than 10 person, which will be used to transport school children, be sold without the school bus flashing warning lights, school bus identification, and be painted school bus yellow as long as the other applicable school bus standard are incorporated into the vehicle?

2. Does the "Definition of a School Bus" standard apply to used vehicles? Can a used regular production line van manufactured after April 1, 1977, with a capacity of more than 10 persons, be sold for pupil transportation purposes?

3. Does the standard apply to vehicles which are leased or rented by schools or bus contractors?

4. Can a school district or bus contractor who has inadvertently purchased a regular production line van that has a capacity of more than 10 persons, reduce the capacity to 10 or less by removing seats?

5. Is there any enforcement of this standard and is there an obligation for the state if we learn of flagrant violations?

If possible we would like to receive answers to these questions soon, as several transactions and budgets will be determined by the answers received.

Thanks for your assistance.

Jack W. Sperr Coordinator Pupil Transportation

ID: nht87-1.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/06/87

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: BINICHI DOI -- NSK REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 11/14/86, TO STEPHEN L OESCH, FROM BINICHI DOI; OCC - 1437

TEXT: Dear Mr. Doi:

Thank you for your letter of November 14, 1986, to Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning how our regulations would apply to a device intended to make it easier to reach the belt or latchplate of a safety belt system. I hope the following discussion answe rs your questions.

You enclosed a sketch with your letter that shows that the device would be attached to the vehicle by the anchorage bolt for the upper torso portion of a lap/shoulder safety belt. You explained that the device, called an "arm" or "belt reacher", is made of material which "does not interfere with the general safety/comfort of passenger and is installed semi-rotationally around the shoulder-anchor point so that it can hold the tongue in a convenient position" for the occupant to reach the belt.

There are no safety standard that directly apply to the device described in your letter. However, if the device is installed as an item of original equipment on a new vehicle, then the vehicle's safety belt system would have to continue to comply with a ll of the requirements of Standard No. 208. Thus, for example, if the device is installed on a vehicle that must comply with the comfort and convenience requirement of S7.4 of the standard, it must continue to meet those requirements, such as the the re traction requirements of S7.4.5, with the device in place. Likewise, the safety belt anchorage would have to continue to comply with all of the performance requirements of Standard No. 210.

There is one further issue associated with the device shown in your letter that I want to address. The agency supports the use of equipment that will make safety belts easier and more comfortable to use. However, it is equally important that those devi ces not introduce excessive slack in the upper torso belt and thereby reduce the effectiveness of that belt. You stated in your letter that the device is made of a material that makes it compliant so that it moves with the belt and does not

interfere with the "original protective function" of the safety belt. If you should implement the design depicted in your letter we encourage you to continue to make sure that the device will not introduce excessive slack in the belt.

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

Sincerely,