ID: nht80-2.30

DATE: 05/06/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVILABLE F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 14, 1980, asking for a confirmation of your interpretation of Section S4.1.4 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

This section specifies requirements affecting school bus signal lamps "when the bus entrance door is opened." Blue Bird is designing an additional entrance door for its buses and you interpret S4.1.4 as requiring the same operational characteristics for the new door.

We confirm your interpretation that "entrance door" means any entrance door on the school bus. Obviously the purpose of the requirement is not achieved if it is restricted to the traditional entrance door on the right front side of the bus and excludes any other entrance door.

Thank you for your interest in safety.

SINCERELY,

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

April 14, 1980

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel NHTSA

Dear Mr. Berndt:

SUBJECT: FMVSS 108

Blue Bird Body Company is in the process of designing an entrance door that will be located behind the driver on the left side of school buses. This entrance door will be in addition to the normal right front entrance door and will operate independently.

FMVSS 108 - Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment - Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, Buses, Trailers, and Motor-cycles, Section S4.1.4 requires school buses to be equipped with signal lamps that, in addition to other requirements:

"The system shall be wired so that the amber signal lamps are activated only by manual or foot operation, and if activated, are automatically deactivated and the red signal lamps automatically activated when the bus entrance door is opened."

From this statement, we interpret "entrance door" to mean any and all entrance doors. In the case described above, we interpret the standard as requiring the same operational characteristics of both the normal right front entrance door and the new left side entrance with regard to activation and deactivation of signal lamps. This letter seeks confirmation of this interpretation. Your early response will be apprecated.

Thank you!

Thomas D. Turner Supervisor Engineering Services Department

c: WILBUR RUMPH; JIM MOORMAN; BILL PIERCE

ID: nht79-4.32

DATE: 07/31/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Yamaha Motor Corporation U.S.A.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 2, 1979, to our former Chief Counsel, Joseph Levin asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You have quoted Column 3 of Table IV with respect to motor cycle headlamps and the specification that the one headlamp the standard requires be located "on the vertical centerline, except that if two are used they shall be symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline". Yamaha would like to equip certain motor cycles with two headlamps, one to be mounted above the other on the vertical centerline with the hope that "this may increase conspicuity and facilitate safety". You have asked whether this mounting arrangement conforms with Standard No. 108.

The arrangement you have in mind is not permitted by the Federal lighting standard. "Symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline" means that each headlamp is an equal distance from the vertical centerline at the same horizontal location. We believe that this provides better and more evenly distributed forward illumination than the system Yamaha proposes, while being the equivalent in conspicuity.

SINCERELY,

YAMAHA MOTOR CORPORATION U.S.A.

July 2, 1979

Joseph J. Levin Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Levin:

Yamaha is exploring the possibility of utilizing two headlamps on some of our motorcycle models. We believe this may increase conspicuity and facilitate safety. Our question deals with the location of the headlamps pursuant to FMVSS 108.

We would like to place the headlamps on the vertical centerline of the vehicle, one above the other. Column 3 of Table IV of FMVSS 108 states: "on the vertical centerline, except that if two are used they shall be symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline."

This section, we believe, can be interpreted to allow the placement of dual headlamps in two ways. The lamps may be placed on the vertical centerline, one above the other, or they may be located horizontally so long as they are equal distance from the vertical centerline.

We would deeply appreciate your concurrence with this interpretation or an explanation of permissible locations. Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Michael J. Schmitt Legal Counsel Engineering Division

ID: nht94-4.85

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 18, 1994

FROM: Harry C. Gough, P. E., Automotive Engineering, Professional Specialist, State of Connecticut, Department of Motor Vehicles

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/16/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP RECHT TO HARRY GOUGH (A43; STD. 217); ALSO ATTACHED TO 7/7/93 AND 3/28/94 LETTERS FROM JOHN WOMACK TO THOMAS D. TURNER

TEXT: Dear Sir:

I am writing on behalf of the State of Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles. We are requesting a written opinion or interpretation regarding the meaning of the phrase "outlined around it's outside perimeter" as used in FMVSS # 217 S5.5.3, Subsection( c). The term is used in regard to retroreflective tape required to identify emergency exits on school buses. The reason for the request is that a State requirement on the color of school buses requires the rear bumper to be black. One school bus manuf acturer supplied buses with the bottom piece of retroreflective tape required for the rear emergency exit installed on the rear bumper. While discussing options regarding relocation of the bottom piece of tape we were told that installation on the botto m of the door itself (not the opening) was not viable since it would not comply with FMVSS # 217 language. Subsequently a number of new school buses from a different manufacturer which were required to have their emergency exits marked were noted to hav e the tape on the door itself rather than on the edges of the opening.

When the door itself is outlined, the tape is not visible when the door is fully opened. When the edges of the opening for the door are outlined then only the hinge side of the tape is not visible. If only the bottom section of the door outline were on the door itself then both the bottom and hinge side would not be visible when the door is opened.

The ultimate question is; Does the language in FMVSS # 217 allow the required retroreflective tape marking around an emergency exit door to be installed on the door itself?

While I realize your office very busy with such interpretations. I would appreciate a response at your earliest convenience. If there are any additional questions or information required, please feel free to have your office call me at (203) 566-8754.

Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter.

ID: 07-007036as 201 armrest

ID: 20962.ztv

Mr. John Harland
Harland Rover Restorations
6-8 Mary St.
Stockton-on-Tees
Cleveland TS18 4AN
England

Dear Mr. Harland:

We are replying to your e-mail of October 18, 1999, with questions relating to Federal regulation of "kit cars." I apologize for the delay in our response.

You would like to import new chasses into the United States. You would also like to import bodies used previously on Land Rover 90/110 vehicles. As described in your letter, the glazing, brake hoses, brake fluid, and seat belt assemblies in these bodies will meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) that apply to these components (you didn't mention lamps and reflectors; these, too, must meet Federal requirements). The tires will be purchased in the United States. The customer will purchase the engines and transmissions "from another independent source." You have asked five questions with respect to this business plan.

"1) What is the procedure for VIN determination? i.e. how will the vehicle be titled? assuming that it would be registered in any of the 50 states."

As we have advised in a long-standing series of interpretations, the mounting of a used body to a new chassis constitutes the manufacture of a new motor vehicle which must meet all FMVSS that apply as of the date of its assembly. The vehicle would also be titled with the year of its assembly. An entity that assembles a vehicle in this manner would be a "manufacturer" under our laws, and required to ensure compliance of the vehicle with all applicable Federal requirements including the VIN (49 CFR Part 565), and to certify compliance of the vehicle (49 CFR Part 567). For example, if you were to assemble this vehicle today, it would have to meet all currently applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards such as those that prescribe criteria that must be met in frontal and side impacts.

"2) What is the licensing requirement that is necessary for a kit-car manufacturer on the federal level?"

In terms of your own operation, we would regard you as an importer of motor vehicle equipment for resale, and therefore a "manufacturer" of this equipment, subject to obligations such as notification and remedy in the event the equipment is discovered to incorporate a safety- related defect or be in noncompliance. Because certain of these equipment items are directly covered by a FMVSS, you would be required to submit a simple identification statement meeting the requirements of 49 CFR Part 566. There is no Federal "licensing" requirement.

Any manufacturer assembling one or more vehicles is also required to file a Part 566 statement. There are no Federal "licensing" requirements for manufacturers of motor vehicles.

"3) What is the requirement for the driveline installation? Must it be done by the purchaser himself? Do I have any responsibility to assure EPA conformity? Must I monitor the driveline installation and can I make any recommendation to the purchaser as to what type of driveline will be put into it (keep in mind that the buyer will want a certain type of engine and I must furnish the kit with appropriate wiring to accept that engine? Are there separate requirements for diesel engines?"

There are no "requirements" for driveline installation, but keep in mind that the entity completing the assembly of a motor vehicle is required to ensure compliance with all FMVSS, and meet certification and notification and remedy responsibilities. We cannot comment on kit car manufacturing responsibilities under EPA's regulations, and encourage you to contact that agency directly. While you may recommend drivetrains to the buyer without becoming the manufacturer of the vehicle, if you are involved in assembling the final product, you would be considered a manufacturer. The more you are involved in final operations, such as "monitoring" the installation of the drive train, the greater the possibility that you will be considered the de facto manufacturer of the vehicle with the actual assembler as your agent.

"4) What type of conformity assurance must I give to the federal government for the conformity of the vehicle parts?"

Your assurance is your statement on the HS-7 importation form that the equipment being imported conforms to all applicable FMVSS.

"5) I will be a limited production manufacturer, what is the maximum number of vehicle kits I can produce before other requirements kick in?"

Under Federal law and your business plan, you would be a "manufacturer" of all motor vehicle equipment that you import for resale. Your responsibility is to ensure that those equipment items covered by a FMVSS conform, and are certified to conform, with any applicable FMVSS. These requirements apply regardless of the number of items imported. We do not define "vehicle kits" or have requirements for them, other than requirements for the individual components as discussed in this letter.

If you have further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:571
d.6/20/00

ID: 1984-2.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/20/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Southwest Research Institute

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Louis F. Klusmeyer, Senior Research Scientist Southwest Research Institute P.O. Drawer 28510 6220 Culebra Road San Antonio, Texas 78284

Dear Mr. Klusmeyer:

This responds to your letter dated May 15, 1984, regarding the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard for compliance testing of the "air over hydraulic" braking system used on certain Nissan heavy duty trucks.

After examining the information provided in your letter and the enclosed diagram of the air over hydraulic braking system, we note that air pressure is used to transmit braking pressure from the driver, not merely to assist the driver in applying muscular force to hydraulic or mechanical components.

When the original final rule was issued on Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, the preamble stated:

It should be noted that the term "air brake system" as defined in the standard applies to the brake configuration commonly referred to as "air over hydraulic," in which failure of either medium can result in complete loss of braking ability.

See Federal Register, February 27, 1971, at page 3817.

In 1972, the agency reiterated this interpretation in the preamble to the original final rule on Standard No. 1O5a (now, Standard No. 1O5), Hydraulic Brake Systems:

Standard No. 105a does not apply to vehicles equipped with "air over hydraulic" systems, which remain within the purview of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

See Federal Register, September 2, 1971, at page 17917. Copies of these pages are enclosed.

Accordingly, the air over hydraulic diesel truck system described in your letter would have to meet the requirements of Standard No. 121 , Air Brake Systems.

You ask whether the air chamber volumes at the "air booster," as it appears in your diagram, could be used in calculating the required air service reservoir capacity or in determining reaction time. This agency agrees that, if the brake actuation to the wheels is hydraulic, then the requirements of Standard No. 121 for air service reservoir capacity and brake application and release timing can be measured at the "air booster" for compliance testing. When a heavy duty truck is equipped with an air over hydraulic brake system, the air booster can be considered the equivalent of the air brake chamber in Standard No. 121.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures

15 May 1984

Mr. Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) has been asked to examine heavy duty trucks produced by Nissan Diesel Motor Co., Ltd. in order to determine compliance with United States standards.

These trucks use a "air-over hydraulic" brake system and there is some question as to the appropriate Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS). We are, therefore, requesting a decision from NHTSA as to whether FMVSS standard 105 or FMVSS standard 121 is applicable to these trucks.

The following information may help in this decision:

o The driver uses a treadle valve to operate and control the service brakes.

o Compressed air is used from the treadle valve to the "air booster" and hydraulic brake fluid is used from the "air booster" to the service brakes.

o No hydraulic or mechanical means is used to transmit force from the drivers control to the "air booster" and no air is used to supply actuating force at the individual wheels.

o A complete loss of air pressure causes a complete loss of braking from the service brake system, rather than a reduced capability as would be normal with a "brake power assist unit" or a "brake power unit".

o "Air brake chambers," as such, are not used since brake actuation at the wheels is hydraulic. The air chamber volumes at the "air booster" could possibly be used in calculating required aiu service reservoir capacity or determining reaction time.

A diagram of the braking system is included with this letter as a aid in understanding the system.

If I can provide further information or answer questions for you, please call (512) 684-5111, extension 3017.

Sincerely,

Louis F. Klusmeyer Senior Research Scientist Vehicle Systems Department of Engine and Vehicle Research Engines, Emissions and Vehicle Research Division

LFK/dg Attachment

INSERT GRAPHS

ID: nht87-1.67

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/21/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; SIGNATURE UNAVAILABLE; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Dawn B. Brown

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dawn B. Brown Currier, Zall & Shepard 207 Main Street P. O. Box L Nashua, New Hampshire 03061-2938

Dear Ms. Brown:

This responds to your January 2, 1987 letter asking a number of questions concerning certain aspects of automatic transmissions. You ask first if there is a Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) relating to the permissibility of a transmission de sign which allows a driver to remove the key from the ignition while the transmission is in drive. You state your belief that "Standard 114, 49 CFR 571.113 is relevant," and ask whether that standard ever has been interpreted for a purpose other than to prevent unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. (We assume that the citation of 571.113 instead of 571.114 was a typographical error.) You ask further if there are any Federal safety standards that address whether a vehicle should "jump from park to drive when left in park." Finally, you ask whether there are standards other then 114 "that govern these problems."

As it is currently written, Standard 114 requires a manufacturer to install a key-locking system that prevents starting a vehicle engine and also prevents either, steering a vehicle or moving a vehicle forward under its own power whenever the key is removed. Thus, the standard does not directly require that the vehicle be in park before a driver can remove the ignition key.

In 1968, when Standard 114 was adopted, the stated purpose was to "reduce the incidence of accidents resulting from unauthorized (motor vehicle) use." 33 Federal Register 6471, April 27, 1968. The agency based this goal on evidence showing that: "Cars operated by unauthorized persons are far more likely to cause unreasonable risk of accident, personal injury and death than those which are driven by authorized individuals." (See the preceding citation). Neither the Standard nor the language in the preamble to it states any other goal.

In 1980, this agency amended Standard 114 to prevent a driver from inadvertently locking the steering wheel of a moving vehicle by removing the ignition key or shutting off the engine (45 Federal Register 85450, December 29, 1980). However, after receivi ng petitions for reconsideration and studying the question further, NHTSA decided that while this kind of inadvertent activation might be a safety problem in certain vehicles, the problem did not then warrant requiring additional steps to protect against inadvertent ,lock-up. Therefore, the agency rescind the 1980 amendment. The agency stated that it would continue to monitor complaints on the subject, and infiltrate rulemaking should new data warrant it ( 46 Federal Register 32251, 32253, June 22, 1981 ).

Currently the agency is re-evaluating whether data warrants amending Standard 114 to improve key-locking systems by reducing the prospect of a driver's inadvertently locking the steering column while a motor vehicle is moving.

As to your question about the existence of a FMVSS which directly addresses the permissibility of a design which allows a car to jump from "park" to "drive" when a driver leaves the car in "park", the answer is there is no such standard. However, NHTSA h as received a number of letters complaining of this phenomenon and, using its authority not only to issue FMVSS but also require the recall and remedy of vehicles and equipment with safety-related defects, has conducted investigations based on these comp laints. A listing of the defect investigations based on these complaints. A listing of the defect investigations can be obtained from: Technical Reference Division, NHTSA, Room 5108, 400 7th St., S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.

I hope you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones

Ms. Erika Jones, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic & Safety Administration 400 7th Street, SouthWest Washington, D.C. 20590

RE: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

Dear Ms. Jones:

Dear Ms. Jones:

I would like to obtain some information about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. First, I would like to know if there are any federal motor vehicle safety standards governing whether a vehicle with an automatic transmission must be in park before th e driver should be able to get the keys out of the ignition. In other words, are there any standards regulating whether or not a driver should be able to pull the keys out of the ignition of a vehicle when it is in drive as opposed to being in park. Seco nd, I would like to know whether there are any federal safety standards which deal with whether or not a vehicle should be able to jump from park to drive when left in park.

Please let me know whether there are any federal standards governing these questions. I am particularly interested in finding out whether Standard 114, 49 CFR 571.113 is relevent. I understand that the purpose of this particular standard is to prevent th e unauthorized use of motor vehicles, but I would like to know whether it has ever been interpreted for another purpose. I would also like to know whether there are other standards, besides Standard 114, that governs these problems. Any information you c an provide will be appreciated. Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Very truly yours,

Dawn B. Brown

ID: 22199.jeg

Mr. Jeffrey William Clawson
Cooper-Standard Automotive Fluid Systems
Corporate Fuel and Brake Applications Laboratory
3955 Pinnacle Court
Auburn Hills, MI 48326





Dear Mr. Clawson:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 106, Brake Hoses. In your letter, you state that you will be supplying "brake jumpers" to General Motors for production year 2002 vehicles. Based on a telephone conversation with you, we understand that "brake jumpers" are hydraulic brake hose assemblies. You state that it is your opinion "that as a Tier I supplier of brake lines a band on the part is not necessary." You note, however, that paragraph S5.2.4.1 of FMVSS No. 106 states that at least one end fitting must be stamped or otherwise designated with an identifying code or logo, and state that you are not sure whether this requirement applies to Tier I suppliers. You ask us to "advise if registration is necessary," and if so, how you should approach the matter. Your questions are addressed below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. One of the standards we have issued is FMVSS No. 106, Brake Hoses, which applies to new motor vehicles and to hydraulic, air, and vacuum brake hose, brake hose assemblies, and brake hose end fittings.

Your questions concern the labeling requirements set forth in S5.2.4 of FMVSS No. 106. That paragraph states in relevant part:

S5.2.4 Each hydraulic brake hose assembly, except those sold as part of a motor vehicle, shall be labeled by means of a band around the brake hose assembly as specified in this paragraph or, at the option of the manufacturer, by means of labeling as specified in S5.2.4.1. . . . (Emphasis added.)

Your letter raises two issues:

(1) Whether, because you are a tier I supplier, your brake hose assemblies are excluded from the labeling requirements of S5.2.4, and

(2) Whether, even if your brake hose assemblies are excluded from the labeling requirements of S5.2.4, they are subject to S5.2.4.1.

Under paragraph S5.2.4, hydraulic brake hose assemblies that are sold as part of a motor vehicle are expressly excluded from that paragraph's labeling requirements. Moreover, S5.2.4 specifies that the labeling requirements of S5.2.4.1 are an option to those specified in S5.2.4. Therefore, hydraulic brake hose assemblies that are sold as part of a motor vehicle are excluded from the labeling requirements of both S5.2.4 and S5.2.4.1.

I note, as historical background, that the S5.2.4 exclusion initially applied only to assemblies "assembled and installed by a vehicle manufacturer in vehicles manufactured by him." In expanding this exclusion by removing the requirement that the assembly must be assembled by the vehicle manufacturer, NHTSA explained:

Assemblies installed in new vehicles need not bear a label because the vehicle certification and identification information serves to certify and identify the hose assembly. NHTSA believes it would make no difference whether the vehicle manufacturer itself produced the assembly.

See Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 56 FR 7640-41, February 25, 1991; Final Rule, 56 FR 50520-21, October 7, 1991.

Thus, if all the brake hose assemblies you supply to General Motors are installed in and sold as part of new vehicles, they are excluded from the labeling requirements of both S5.2.4 and S5.2.4.1. However, if General Motors were to sell some of the brake hose assemblies you supply to it as replacement equipment, those assemblies would not be excluded from these requirements. If this is a possibility, it might be easier for you to simply label all of the assemblies in accordance with S5.2.4 or S5.2.4.1. Since General Motors will know how it will use the assemblies, we suggest that you consult with it about this matter.

Paragraphs S5.2.4 and S5.2.4.1 specify, among other things, that the assembly be labeled with:

A designation that identifies the manufacturer of the hose assembly, which shall be filed in writing with: Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, Vehicle Dynamics Division, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20590. The designation may consist of block capital letters, numerals or a symbol.

I note that our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance now has the responsibility within NHTSA for handling and maintaining these designations. We plan to change the address in Standard No. 106 to reflect this change. You may contact James Gilkey of our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, at (202) 366-5295, concerning how to file such a designation.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Edward Glancy of this office at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information .

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:106
d.4/23/01

ID: nht76-5.50

DATE: 07/01/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: ROHR Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Rohr Industries' April 27, 1976, letter asking how to test an emergency exit that contains no glazing in conformity with the provision of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, that specifies testing before and after a window retention test (S5.3.2.). You also ask whether the emergency exit identification requirements of S5.5.1 specify the placement of operating instructions at a designated seating position which does not qualify as an "adjacent seat" under the definition found in S4 of the standard.

The window retention requirement is not required in the case of an emergency exit that contains no glazing. Because this requirement is clearly inapplicable to such an exit, the emergency exit release requirements of S5.3.2 must be met, but without the need to conduct a window retention test.

In answer to your second question, S5.5.1 requires that a label indicating the location of the nearest exit release mechanism be placed at "adjacent seats" to any exit whose release mechanism is not located within the occupant space of that adjacent seat. There are no labeling requirements in S5.5.1 for seating that is not "adjacent" to the exit. As you note, some interior configurations result in seating whose "occupant space" is not within 10 inches of any emergency exit (measured as set forth in S4). Such seating would not have to be labeled with the location of the nearest release mechanism, although some manufacturers do provide this information voluntarily. The agency has evaluated a requirement for this labeling but considers present labelling practices adequate at this time.

SINCERELY,

April 27, 1976

Robert Williams Office of Crashworthiness National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

Reference: FMVSS No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release

This letter is forwarded in response to your suggestion made during our telephone conversation of April 15, 1976, during which we discussed the interpretation of certain requirements contained in the referenced FMVSS. Our discussion concerned an emergency roof exit installed in an urban transit bus in accordance with paragraph S5.2.1, since the bus configuration precludes installation of an accessible rear emergency exit.

The roof exit under discussion is not a push-out window. No window glazing is involved. It is of a metal-foam-sandwich construction comparable to the surrounding roof. Paragraph S5.3.2 requires each emergency exit allow manual release of the exit "both before and after the window retention test required by S5.1". Clarification of the application of these window retention tests to the non-glazed roof hatch is requested.

a. Is it required that a non-glazed roof emergency exit be subjected to the window retention test specified by paragraphs S5.1?

b. If testing is required, which of the terminating events in S5.1 are applicable when testing a non-window type exit?

c. If testing is required, must the test be accomplished with the vehicle resting on it's side per Figure 3B, Roof Emergency Exit?

During our phone conversation referenced above, you expressed your unofficial interpretations as being that a non-glazed roof emergency exit would be subject to the release force requirements of the standard but not the retention force requirements or testing under S5.1.

Clarification with respect to emergency exit identification is also requested. Paragraph S5.1 states in part -

". . .When a release mechanism is not located within the occupant space of an adjacent seat, a label meeting the requirements of S5.5.2 that indicates the location of the nearest release mechanism shall be placed within that occupant space."

Paragraph S4 defines an "adjacent seat" and "occupant space" in a manner which indicates that a designated seating position is not to be identified as an "adjacent seat" unless some portion of it's occupant space is not more than ten inches from an emergency exit, for a distance of at least fifteen inches measured horizontally and parallel to the exit. As you know, certain bus seating configurations are such that some designated seating positions are directly adjoining fixed windows/piar panels (non-glazed areas between windows). These fixed (non-push-out) windows and pier panels are not designed as, nor marked as emergency exits. The occupant space of the adjoining designated seating position is not within ten inches of an emergency exit for a distance of at least fifteen inches measured horizontally and parallel to that exit. Therefore, it is our understanding that these seating positions are not, by definition, adjacent seats.

a. Do these non-adjacent seats adjoining a fixed window or a pier panel require emergency exit location referral labelling under the current edition of FMVSS No. 217?

b. If so, which paragraph specifies such a requirement?

c. If not, has such a requirement been considered?

Here also during our phone conversation previously referenced, you expressed an unofficial opinion that these particular seating positions were not covered by labelling requirements. Please confirm.

Your review of and assistance with above will be greatly appreciated.

R. L. Ratz Safety Engineering Specialist

ID: 23544rack

Mr. Christopher P. Reilly
8657 Langholm Rd.
El Cajon, CA 92021





Dear Mr. Reilly:

This responds to your letter seeking information on regulations that govern the design, manufacture, installation and use of a cargo rack for SUVs. I regret the delay in responding.

You state that the cargo rack contains a 2 ft x 4 ft area elevated by posts at about the same height as the back of the rear seat. The cargo rack will attach to existing cargo tie downs located on the floor behind the rear seat. Items may be stored on the rack's main storage area or on shelves attached to the posts. Further, you indicate that storage of items in the rack's main area may block the view through the rear window and that you are concerned that items tied down in the rack may become loose in an accident and strike a passenger in the back of the head. Because you do not mention whether the cargo rack will be made available for installation as original equipment and/or marketed as an aftermarket product for installation on used vehicles, we will address both types of installations.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the statutory authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment or pass on the compliance of a vehicle or item of equipment outside the context of an actual enforcement proceeding. Instead, Federal law establishes a self-certification system under which motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers themselves certify that their products comply with all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion regarding the applicability of our laws and standards to your product based on the facts set forth in your letter.

Installation in New Vehicles

A manufacturer of a new vehicle must certify that its vehicle meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Any person who manufactures or sells a new vehicle which does not conform to any safety standard is subject to civil penalties and recall action under our statute.

NHTSA has issued Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, to establish performance and location requirements for rearview mirrors in each new motor vehicle. Under this standard, your cargo rack may or may not be permitted, depending on the particular vehicle in which the cargo rack would be installed. "Inside" rearview mirrors are required for "multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses, other than school buses, with a GVWR [gross vehicle weight rating] of 4,536 kg or less," under one alternative of the standard (paragraph (a) of S6.1). If a vehicle manufacturer met Standard No. 111's requirements by way of an inside rearview mirror, a rack could not obstruct the view of the inside rearview mirror (i.e., the mirror must continue to provide the scope of view required by the standard). Inside rearview mirrors are not required for multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with a GVWR greater than 4,536 kg. The installation of your rack in those vehicles would not interfere with the operation of a required "inside" rearview mirror and thus would not create a noncompliance with Standard No. 111. However, the vehicles will continue to be subject to the other rearview mirror requirements of sections S6, S7 and S8 of Standard No. 111 and all other relevant requirements.

The vehicle manufacturer also needs to certify that the vehicle, with the installed cargo rack, conforms to other applicable FMVSSs, including FMVSS No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, and No. 202, Head Restraints. I have enclosed an information sheet that describes how you can obtain copies of these and other FMVSSs. You should review the standards to see how they would affect the installation of the cargo rack in a new vehicle.

As an Aftermarket Item of Equipment

We would classify the cargo rack as an item of motor vehicle equipment regulated by NHTSA. Our statute defines "motor vehicle equipment" in 49 U.S. Code (U.S.C.) 30102(a)(7)(B) in relevant part as any system, part, or component "soldas an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle." An item of equipment is an accessory if it meets the following criteria:

a. A substantial portion of its expected uses are related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles; and

b. It is purchased or otherwise acquired, and principally used by ordinary users of motor vehicles

After reviewing your letter, we conclude that the cargo rack is an accessory. It was designed with the expectation that a substantial portion of its use will be with motor vehicles. Further, your description of the cargo rack makes it clear that the cargo rack is intended to be purchased and principally used by ordinary users of motor vehicles to store cargo inside the rear cargo area of the vehicle.

While a cargo rack is an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA has not issued any FMVSSs establishing performance standards directly applicable to this product if it were sold directly to consumers for installation on used vehicles. However, the manufacturer is subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C.30118-30120, which set forth the notification and remedy procedures for products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. Thus, if NHTSA or the manufacturer determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and for remedying the problem free of charge. (Note that this responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which the product is installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.)

The installation of a cargo rack by a commercial entity is also subject to other restrictions. Our statute at 49 U.S.C.30122 provides that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or vehicle repair business may not knowingly "make inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in accordance with any FMVSS. Therefore, the cargo rack could not be installed by any of those entities if such use would adversely affect the capability of a vehicle to comply with the performance requirements of FMVSS No. 111, as well as the compliance of a vehicle with any other FMVSS. You should carefully review the FMVSSs to determine whether installation of your cargo rack would affect a vehicle's compliance with the standards. ⁽¹⁾

Finally, we agree with your concern that items tied down in the rack may become loose in a crash and strike vehicle occupants. It might be advisable to include in your design means to prevent occupants from being struck by flying cargo in crash situations.

States have the authority to regulate the use and licensing of vehicles operating within their jurisdictions and may have restrictions on cargo racks. Therefore, you should check with the Department of Motor Vehicles in any state in which the equipment will be sold or used.

I hope this information is helpful. For your further information, I am enclosing a fact sheet we prepared entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment. If you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Nancy Bell of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:111
d.2/26/02






---




¹ The "make inoperative" provision does not apply to equipment attached to or installed on or in a vehicle by the vehicle owner. However, NHTSA urges vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of any system or device on their vehicles.