ID: nht81-2.49

DATE: 07/17/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Department of Transportation; Michigan

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 30, 1981 letter pertaining to the mounting of an old school bus body on a new chassis. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has stated that such a mounting constitutes the manufacture of a new motor vehicle and must comply with all applicable safety standards in effect at the time of that manufacture. This statement comes from previous agency interpretations of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and from the rationale underlying the provisions of section 571.7(e) of our regulations. You state that section 571.7(e) applies only to trucks and, accordingly, has no application to school buses.

The agency has had a longstanding position that a vehicle combining an old body and new chassis is a new vehicle. This position was developed and applied long before the proposal of section 571.7(e) in May 1975. See, for example, the enclosed 1972 letter of interpretation and the discussion of pre-proposal interpretations in the enclosed copy of the May 1975 proposal.

The codification in section 571.7(e) of the agency's position as regards trucks did not alter its simiar position as regards other vehicle types. I am enclosing a 1978 interpretation stating that school buses will be treated under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act in the same fashion as trucks are under section 571.7(e). The reason for this interpretation is the similarity of the practice of manufacturing school buses and trucks on new truck chassis. Accordingly, the agency has applied the same rationale in determining those vehicles, e.g., buses, that are to be considered newly-manufactured.

In light of these existing interpretations and in the interest of safety, the agency is retaining its position that vehicles using old bodies and new chassis be treated as newly manufactured vehicles.

ENCLS.

STATE OF MICHIGAN

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

March 30, 1981

Roger Tilton, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Tilton:

The State of Michigan is in the grips of a financial crisis which is now threatening the children of this State through the local school's inability to provide new school buses to replace those which have reached the end of their life expectancy.

New school bus purchases are off by about 75% due to budget constraints which have also reduced the State's assistance to the school district from 68% during the last reimbursement period to an expected 30% for the 80-81 fiscal year. In this State, we turn over 1,900 school buses each year.

As a means to provide safe, dependable and economical school bus transportation, the local school districts are contemplating rehabilitation of these older school buses.

Rebuilding an old school bus is easy and economically rewarding. However, there are many old school bus bodies (approx. 20% or 350 each year) that would better serve the fleet if they were mounted on new chassis.

We, in the State of Michigan, are fully aware of previous interpretation of Part 571.7(e) of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards which relates to combining new and used components. The interpretations which are printed for all who ask, come from Joan Claybrook's office and from Frank Berndt do not say one shall not put an old school bus body on a new chassis, BUT that when an old school bus body is placed on a new chassis, the entire re-manufactured vehicle must comply with all of the FMVSS's in effect on the date of re-manufacture. The interpretation leads us to Part 571.7(e).

The Part 571.7(e) relates to "TRUCKS" and does not address "BUS" or school bus. Since there is "TRUCK" listed in definitions, Part 571.3 and the word "BUS" is also in definitions Part 571.3; we contend that 571.7(e) does not apply to Bus or School Bus since 571.7(e) does not refer to "BUS" in its content.

We do not accept the interpretation provided by Joan Claybrook or Frank Berndt. We completely understand that by allowing these used buses manufactured prior to April 1, 1977 to wash out of the system that in a few years the only buses on the road will be those which were manufactured in compliance with 220, 221, & 222.

The Part 571.7(e) also tells us that the re-manufactured truck must meet the current FMVSS "unless the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) (as a minimum) of the assembled vehicle are not new, and at least two of these components were taken from the same vehicle." Therefore, if we in Michigan make these drive line changes we do not have a re-manufactured truck and we can continue to use a pre April 1, 1977 school bus body which still does not meet 220, 221, & 222; while mounted on a post April 1, 1977 chassis.

I submit to you that your office, NHTSA, is saying that we may not put a pre April 1, 1977 school bus body on a post April 1, 1977 chassis unless the body is updated to meet the post April 1, 1977 FMVSS 220, 221, & 222, OR instead of updating the body, we may install a used engine, transmission, and rear end in the new chassis; two of those three components must come from the same used vehicle.

Your interpretation is illogical and seemingly does not apply where school buses are concerned. We respectfully request a new interpretation keeping in mind that it is President Reagan's philosophy that those Federal Regulations which are non-productive, yet require great expense in order to comply; are Regulations with which we need to deal.

The State of Michigan, the State Department of Education, and I personally feel bound to comply with Federal Law; however, we do not feel bound to comply with an interpretation which smacks of pressure from the manufacturers and dealers who are in the business to sell new bodies.

We eagerly await your response.

Larry Louderback, Safety Specialist Pupil Transportation

cc: PHIL O'LEARY - SAFETY & TRAFFIC PROG; MR. WEINHEIMER - MICH. SCH. BD. ASSOC.; MR. TEBBE - UNION CITY SCH. DIST.; SENATOR DON RIEGLE; ROD LAMORE - GRAND RAPIDS STATE POLICE; DREW LEWIS - TRANS. SEC.; NHTSA

ID: nht74-1.28

DATE: 07/15/74

FROM: C. BAKER FOR E. T. DRIVER -- NHTSA

TO: Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

COPYEE: L. C. OWEN

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 27 concerning the location of motorcycle turn signal lamps relative to a combination stop lamp and reflex reflector.

The minimum edge to edge separation distance specified in Table IV of FMVSS No. 108 for motorcycle turn signal lamps is to be measured from the edge of the illuminated surface of both lamps.

The answer to your question 2 is therefore applicable, "2. edge to edge of tail and stop lamp so drawn in sketch C?"

ID: nht71-1.46

DATE: 01/01/71 EST

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; L. R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: L. R. Walders, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: RE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF FMVSS NO. 108

In your letter of December 23, 1970, you asked on behalf of the Japan Automobile Manufacturer's Association whether a motorcycle manufactured prior to January 1, 1973, must comply with the location requirements for turn signal lamps if the vehicle is so equipped.

This will confirm your interpretation that "the location requirements for turn signal lamps do not apply to motorcycles manufactured before January 1, 197, and no change would be required for the location of turn signal lamps on motorcycles manufactured before that date".

ID: 1985-01.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/29/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Neal McCormick -- Senior Consultant Transportation, Colorado Dept. of Education

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 11/2/84 letter from Diane K. Steed to Jim Burnett, Chairman, NTSB

TEXT: This responds to your November 21, 1984 letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) applicable to school buses. Our answers follow your specific questions which we have restated below.

1. Do the Federal school bus standards in fact preclude a school district from transporting pupils in vehicles not meeting all school bus standards?

To begin, I would like to explain that there are two sets of regulations, issued under different Acts of Congress, that could affect a school district's choice of buses. The first of these are the motor vehicle safety standards to which you refer in your letter. These safety standards were issued by our agency under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-563; 15 U.S.C. 1381-1426) and apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. In a 1974 amendment to the Act, Congress expressly directed us to issue standards on specific aspects of school bus safety, including emergency exits, seating systems, windows and windshields, and bus structure. The standards we issued became effective April 1, 1977, and apply to each school bus manufactured on or after that date. If a school district plans to buy a new bus for use as an activity bus, the manufacturer and dealer must certify that the bus complies with the motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses. The Federal sanctions are directed against the dealer or manufacturer who sells a new noncomplying bus to a school for school use. Strictly speaking, a school district is not prohibited by our school bus safety standards from operating a noncomplying school bus.

There might, however, be an impediment under State law, if Colorado has adopted the provisions of the standard on school transportation issued by our agency under the Highway Safety Act (Public Law 89-564; 23 U.S.C. 401-408). This standard, Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17 (HSPS 17), specifies that a bus used to transport more than 16 pupils to and from school should be painted yellow, be equipped with special mirrors and warning lights, and be marked "School Bus." Therefore, although the Vehicle Safety Act would not prevent a school district from operating a noncomplying school bus, HSPS 17 might affect your school districts if Colorado has adopted it and if Colorado accepts our view that the specifications apply to activity buses. I have enclosed a copy of HSPS 17 that was photocopied from volume 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1204.4, as requested by your associate, Mr. Joseph Marchese.

If Colorado chooses to exempt activity buses from being painted, signed, and equipped as school buses, we might disagree with the wisdom of its decision but we would not insist on compliance with HSPS 17 to the extent of taking action against the State. Congress has given us discretion under the Highway Safety Act not to insist that a State comply with every requirement of the highway safety standards. While we have stressed the importance of a strong pupil transportation program, consistent with HSPS 17, we have not insisted that the States comply with every feature of the standard.

Having said this, however, I would like to restate the importance that our agency attaches to the use of safe buses to transport children. It remains the agency's position that a yellow school bus meeting the motor vehicle safety standards is the safest means of transportation for school children. Such a bus has safety features such as seat backs designed to cushion impacts, windows that prevent ejections, and exits that facilitate escape after crashes. In the years since buses began to be manufactured with these features, there has been a marked improvement in school bus safety. These are features that school districts should consider when deciding to purchase their school vehicles.

2. May a state set out definitions of vehicles (for transportation of pupils) which do not meet all applicable school bus standards? If not, what penalties may be applied?

Our Federal motor vehicle safety regulations define a bus as a motor vehicle designed to carry more than 10 persons and further define a school bus as a bus that is sold for the purposes of carrying students to and from school or related events. The decision of a State not to adopt the Federal classification has no effect on the application of the Federal school bus safety standards to that vehicle. The Federal school bus safety standards would apply to vehicles that meet the Federal definition of a school bus, regardless of whether the vehicle is considered a school bus under state regulations. Of course, the Federal standards apply only to those vehicles that were manufactured after the effective date of the standards, April 1, 1977.

Section 103(d) of the Vehicle Safety Act states generally that no State shall have in effect any State standard regulating an aspect of performance that is regulated by a Federal safety standard unless the State standard is identical to the Federal standard. State standards that are not identical are preempted by the Safety Act unless they impose a higher level of safety and are applicable only to vehicles procured for the State's own use.

The preemptive effect of section 103(d) is not altered by the fact that a vehicle classified as a school bus under the Safety Act is classified as some other type of motor vehicle under State law. A State decision to adopt all or none of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to a type of motor vehicle has no effect on the necessity under the Safety Act of manufacturing such a motor vehicle in accordance with the Federal standards.

3. If a local educational agency acquires a vehicle not meeting all applicable school bus safety standards and uses it for transporting pupils, what penalties may be applied? Would such penalties apply if the vehicle is used for "activity" transportation only?

As we explained above, the school district that purchases and uses a noncomplying school bus would not be subject to Federal sanctions under the Vehicle Safety Act. It is only illegal for a manufacturer or dealer to sell such a vehicle to a school knowing that the school will use it to transport students. Any person selling new vehicles for use in school transportation which fail to comply with all applicable safety standards is violating the Vehicle Safety Act and is subject to a maximum penalty of $ 1,000 per violation. Further, in regard to the second part of this question, the answer is yes. The penalties would apply to a person selling a new bus to a school for school related activity trips if that bus is not certified to the Federal safety standards.

You should note that although a school district would not be subject to Federal sanctions under the Safety Act for buying and using a noncomplying bus, using such a vehicle as a school bus could result in increased liability in the event of an accident. You might want to consult your attorney and insurance company to discuss this matter.

4. If a local educational agency acquires a vehicle meeting all applicable school bus standards and modifies such a vehicle, is there a penalty? For example, replacement of 222 seating with seats not in compliance with the 222 standards.

The answer is no. Nothing in the Vehicle Safety Act prohibits an owner, such as a school, from modifying its own vehicles. However, the Act does prohibit dealers, manufacturers and motor vehicle repair shops from knowingly rendering inoperative any element of design installed in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The school can replace the seats of the original school bus with seats that do not comply with FMVSS No. 222 if it so desires. As we pointed out above, the school could be subject to increased liability in case of an accident. We suggest that you discuss this matter with your attorney or insurance company.

5. Is NHTSA at present considering any amendments to the existing standards for school buses? Also, are any additional standards likely to be promulgated within the next year?

Our agency has recently received a petition for rulemaking requesting that FMVSS No. 222 be amended to set certain specifications for seat belt performance on large school buses if seat belts are voluntarily installed on these vehicles. The decision to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking will be made by NHTSA in the course of the rulemaking proceeding, in accordance with statutory criteria.

6. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has set out several recommendations for "activity" buses. Does NHTSA concur in these recommendations? (These refer to certification/training of mechanics, etc.)

Enclosed is a copy of a November 2, 1984 letter from NHTSA's Administrator, Diane K. Steed, to Chairman Burnett of the National Transportation Safety Board, which comments on several recommendations NTSB made regarding school bus repairs, certification of mechanics, instruction on emergency equipment use, et cetera. I believe this letter will discuss your concerns thoroughly.

If you have any further questions, do not hesitate to contact my office.

ENCLS.

[See 11/2/84 letter from Diane K. Steed to Jim Burnett, Chairman, NTSB] COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

November 21, 1984

Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel NHTSA -- USDOT

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This letter concerns Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, particularly those applicable to school buses; of special interest are Nos. 217, 220, 221, and 222. Your answers will be of special interest to this state; in addition, copies will be provided to State Directors of Pupil Transportation Services per a request at the annual meeting in Albuquerque, New Mexico, on November 5.

The standards appear to preclude a school agency from acquiring any vehicle, other than one meeting all applicable school bus standards, for the transportation of pupils to/from school or school related events. Following are specific questions in this regard:

1. Do the above standards in fact preclude a school district from transporting pupils in vehicles not meeting all school bus standards?

2. May a state set out definition(s) of vehicles (for transportation of pupils) which do not meet all applicable school bus standards? If not, what penalties may be applied?

3. If a local educational agency acquires a vehicle not meeting all applicable school bus standards, and uses it for transporting pupils, what penalties may be applied? Would such penalty (if any) apply if the vehicle is used for "activity" transportation only?

4. If a local educational agency acquires a vehicle meeting all applicable school bus standards and modifies such vehicle (in a category governed by one of the above standards) is there a penalty? For example, replacement of 222 seating with seats not in compliance with the 222 standards.

5. Is NHTSA at present considering any amendments to the existing standards for school buses? Also, are any additional standards likely to be promulgated within the next year?

6. The National Transportation Safety Board has set out several recommendations for "activity" buses; does NHTSA concur in these recommendations? (These refer to certification/training of mechanics, etc.)

Thank you for any consideration.

Neal McCormick Senior Consultant Transportation

CC: PAUL STEWART -- WEST VA. DEPT. OF EDUCATION; ROY G. BRUBACHER -- COLORADO DEPT. OF EDUCATION; DANIEL G. WISOTZKEY -- COLORADO DEPT. OF EDUCATION

ID: 10194

August 26,
1994

Mr. Richard Kreutziger Executive Director New York School Bus Distributors Association 102 Grace Street Penn Yan, NY 14527

Dear Mr. Kreutziger:

This responds to your facsimile transmittal letter to me of July 19, 1994.

Your letter referred to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (49 CFR 571.217), and asked whether emergency exits on school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of less than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) and a passenger capacity of 2 to 16 seated and/or wheelchair positions, are required to be outlined with retroreflective tape as specified in paragraph S5.5.3(c) of the standard.

In 49 CFR 571.3, this agency defines a bus as a motor vehicle, except a trailer, designed to carry more than 10 persons, and further defines a school bus as

[A] bus that is sold, or introduced in interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, but does not include a bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation.

Whether or not a vehicle is a school bus, therefore, depends on its use (transporting the specified students) and seating capacity (more than 10), and not GVWR. Accordingly, if the seating capacity of a vehicle is 10 or less, it is not a bus and likewise not a school bus, regardless of use or GVWR. Such a vehicle would not be required to comply with the requirements of FMVSS No. 217.

Vehicles meeting the definition of school bus would be subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 217. Section S5.5 of the standard, Emergency Exit Identification, specifies the marking

requirements for emergency exits on all buses. Sections S5.5.1 and S5.5.2 apply to non-school buses, while section S5.5.3 applies to all school buses, without regard to GVWR.

Paragraph S5.5.3(c) provides:

Each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a minimum 3 centimeters wide retroreflective tape, either red, white, or yellow in color, that when tested under the conditions specified in S6.1 of 571.131, meets the criteria specified in Table 1.

We would like to emphasize two points with regard to your letter. The first is that only those emergency exits that are required by the standard are subject to this provision. Extra emergency exits added as options are encouraged, but not required, to be outlined with the tape. The other point is one that I made in a May 18, 1994 letter to you. A technical amendment is pending publication which will amend the size requirement for the width of the retroreflective tape, from a minimum of 3 centimeters (cm.) to a minimum of 2.5 cm. That amendment is necessary because retroreflective tape is not commercially available in 3 cm. widths. Until the correction is issued, NHTSA will not take enforcement measures regarding tape width size against a manufacturer who uses one inch wide (minimum 2.5 cm.) retroreflective tape.

In closing, bear in mind that all school buses are required to have a specified number of emergency exits, the number and location of which depend on the seating capacity of the vehicle, regardless of the GVWR, and all required emergency exits must be outlined with the retroreflective tape.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:217 d:8/26/94

ID: 10553

Mr. G. Brandt Taylor
President
Day-Night Mirrors, Inc.
36 Barnes Hill Road
Berlin, MA 01503

Dear Mr. Taylor:

This responds to your letter asking about the requirements applicable to multiple reflectance mirrors in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 111, Rear View Mirrors. You stated that your mirror can change its reflectivity either by mechanically rotating a shaft or by actuating an electrical motor.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, each manufacturer is responsible for "self-certifying" that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards.

FMVSS No. 111 specifies requirements for the performance and location of rearview mirrors. Section S11, which specifies requirements for mirror construction, provides in relevant part that

All single reflectance mirrors shall have an average reflectance of at least 35 percent. If a mirror is capable of multiple reflectance levels, the minimum reflectance level in the day mode shall be at least 35 percent and the minimum reflectance level in the night mode shall be at least 4 percent. A multiple reflectance mirror shall either be equipped with a means for the driver to adjust the mirror to a reflectance level of at least 35 percent in the event of electrical failure, or achieve such reflectance automatically in the event of electrical failure.

You asked several questions about the requirement for adjusting the mirror in the event of electrical failure. You first asked if a manual override knob could be removable. You then asked whether a removable manual override could be supplied by the car manufacturer along with the car keys or with the owner's manual for insertion into the mirror and use only in the event of an electrical failure. You also asked about whether "west coast" mirrors and mirrors on trailer trucks could have a removable manual override.

The answer to each of your questions is that a removable manual override knob would not be permitted. In the preamble to the final rule amending the mirror construction requirements in FMVSS No. 111, NHTSA stated that the agency's goal is to assure that multiple reflectance mirrors are capable of providing adequate images at all times during the vehicle's operation, including electrical failure situations where the mirror is unpowered. (see 56 FR 58513, November 20, 1991)

The manual override knob you discuss would serve as the means for the driver to adjust the mirror's reflectance level. However, a removable manual override knob would not always serve this purpose, since it would not necessarily always be with the mirror. We are concerned that a removable override device may become lost or otherwise not available when a mirror's reflectance needs to be adjusted. Accordingly, since the agency's goal of providing adequate images at all times during the vehicle's operation would only be achieved by requiring this device to be permanent, a removable override would not be permitted.

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

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

ref:111 d:2/13/95

ID: 1984-3.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/13/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: R.S. Anson -- Managing Director, Anson Plastics Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. R. S. Anson Managing Director Anson Plastics Limited Brunleys, Kiln Farm Milton Keynes MK11 3EN England

Dear Mr. Anson: This responds to your July 27, 1984, letter to Mr. George Parker of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 106, Brake Hoses. Your letter was referred to this office for reply.

You asked whether your nylon tubing brake hoses may be sold to vehicle manufacturers in the United States if the tubing met the requirements of Standard No. 106, but did not conform to the requirements of any SAE Standard, viz. , SAE J844, "Nonmetallic Air Brake System Tubing." The answer to your question is yes.

Under Section 108(a) (1) (A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1391 et seq.) manufacturers are prohibited from selling or importing into the United States new motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the effective date of any applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard which did not conform with such Standard (15 U.S.C. 1397). If your brake hoses comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106, they may be sold in this country.

Paragraph S4 of Standard No. 106 defines a "brake hose" as:

a flexible conduit, other than a vacuum tubing connector, manufactured for use in a brake system to transmit or contain the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes.

We wish to emphasize that flexible conduits manufactured out of nylon tubing that transmit or contain the pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes are "brake hoses." Your nylon tubing air brake hoses are thus required to meet all applicable requirements of the standard. These requirements are extensive and include tests relating to high and low temperature resistance, oil and ozone resistance, length change, air pressure, burst strength, tensile strength, water absorption and tensile strength, zinc cloride resistance, and end fitting corrosion resistance.

Your hose need not be tested to requirements that are obviously inapplicable.

For example, the adhesion test is not applicable because there are no layers in the hose's construction which could fail to adhere.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act imposes general responsibilities on manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment regarding safety defects. Under Sections 151 et seq., manufacturers must notify purchasers about safety-related defects and remedy such defects free of charge. Section 109 imposes a civil penalty of up to $1,000 upon any person who fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect in motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment.

We are enclosing a copy of FMVSS No. 106, as of this date. For your convenience, we are also enclosing an information sheet entitled "Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations."

Finally, in your letter you indicated that Title 49 of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, Chapter III, specifies requirements for brake tubing designed for use between a towed and towing vehicle. You inquired into the requirements of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety for brake tubing used in other applications. We have forwarded your letter to that agency for their reply.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosures

ID: label on booster seat

ID: label_color1307

Lori J. Crouzillat, Safety Advisor
E-Z-On Products, Inc., of Florida
605 Commerce Way West
Jupiter, FL 33458

Dear Ms. Crouzillat:

This responds to your letter asking about the labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.213, Child restraint systems, that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration adopted in an October 1, 2002, final rule (67 FR 61523; corrected 69 FR 11337). The rulemaking sought to provide for clearer and simpler child restraint system (CRS) labels.

To inform users about the consequences of not following CRS instructions, the October 2002 rule required, among other matters, that a CRS be affixed with a label that has an alert symbol and a heading, "WARNING! DEATH or SERIOUS INJURY can occur," followed by bulleted statements regarding proper use (S5.5.2(g)).The agency required one portion of the heading (an alert symbol and the exclamation "WARNING!") to be in black text on a yellow background, as specified in S5.5.2(k)(3)(i) ^[1] for the air bag warning label required for rear-facing child restraints.

Yellow Background

You first ask whether the phrase "DEATH or SERIOUS INJURY can occur" must be on a yellow background. The answer is no. In the preamble to the October 2002 final rule, the agency recognized the similarity between the new heading required for CRS warning labels and that of the air bag warning label. So that manufacturers may take advantage of this similarity when designing or producing labels, S5.5.2(g)(2) of FMVSS No. 213 specifies that the phrase "DEATH or SERIOUS INJURY can occur" may be printed on either a yellow or a white background, at the manufacturers option. Accordingly, the warning label required by S5.5.2 must have either: (a) the alert symbol and the entire statement, "WARNING! DEATH or SERIOUS INJURY can occur," on a yellow background with black text; or (b) the alert symbol and the word "WARNING!" on a yellow background with black text, and the phrase "DEATH or SERIOUS INJURY can occur" on a white background with black text.

Separate Labels

You next ask if the warning label heading and bulleted points are required to be on a single label or if a portion of the heading could be on a separate label placed directly above the remaining label components. Our answer is the warning label heading may be on a separate label, provided certain requirements are met.

The agency explained in the preamble to the October 2002 final rule that separate label components are permissible so long as the separate components are attached to the CRS in the correct order with no intervening labels. 67 FR at 61526, col. 2. ^[2]As such, your company is permitted to have a label component printed with the alert symbol and the exclamation "WARNING" placed directly above a second label component printed with the phrase "DEATH or SERIOUS injury can occur," followed by the applicable bulleted statements. The separate label components must meet the provisions of S5.5.2(g)(3).

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:213
d.3/31/04





---

[1] The October 2002 final rule inadvertently referenced S5.5.2(k)(4)(i) instead of subparagraph (k)(3)(i). We have corrected this reference in a document published on March 10, 2004 (69 FR 11337)(copy enclosed).

[2] See also S5.5.2(g)(3), which was added to FMVSS No. 213 by the March 2004 final rule.

ID: maxon_threshold7346

S. Lafferty, Manager, Engineering
Maxon
16205 Distribution Way
Cerritos, CA 90703




Dear Ms. Lafferty:

This responds to you letter in which you asked about the threshold warning requirements under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 403, Platform lift systems for motor vehicles. You stated that there is an apparent discrepancy between the threshold warning system requirement and the associated test procedure, and asked which takes precedent. As explained below, the specified test procedure for the threshold warning system requirement is consistent with that requirement.

As part of FMVSS No. 403, the agency established a threshold warning signal requirement for platform lifts in part to minimize the risk of a lift user backing off a vehicle before a lift is properly positioned. S6.1 of FMVSS No. 403 requires an appropriate threshold warning signal to be activated when any portion of a passengers body or mobility aid occupies the platform threshold area defined in S4 of that standard, and the platform is more than 25 mm (1 inch) below the vehicle floor reference plane. A platform lift must meet this requirement when tested in accordance with S7.4 of the standard.

In your letter you stated that it is possible to design a threshold warning system that "will pass a test that is performed as described in S7.4 and not completely fulfill the requirements of S6.1.3". You described a threshold warning system designed with an optical sensor at the interior boundary of the platform threshold area. You stated that such a system would activate the warning signal only when a passenger is crossing the boundary of the threshold at the same time as the platform is lower than 25 mm from the vehicle floor. You further stated that such a system would not activate a signal if a passenger were completely within the threshold area when the platform reached the specified distance from the vehicle floor. Your letter indicated that you believe that such a system would "pass" the test procedure, but not comply fully with the requirement.

A system as you described would not comply with the requirements of S6.1.3 when tested as specified in S7.4. As stated above, S6.1 requires the appropriate warning signal to activate when tested in accordance with S7.4. S7.4.2 specifies that, with the platform lift at the vehicle floor loading position:

[P]lace one front wheel of the unloaded wheelchair test device [specified in S7.1.2] on any portion of the threshold area defined in S4. Move the platform down until the alarm is actuated. Remove the test wheelchair wheel from the threshold area to deactivate the alarm. Measure the vertical distance between the platform and the threshold area and determine whether that distance is greater than 25 mm (1 in).

Thus, S7.4.2 specifies placing the front wheel of the test device on any portion of the threshold area. As explained in 49 CFR 571.4, the use of the term "any" in connection with a range of values or set of items means generally, "the totality of the items or values, any one of which may be selected by the [agency] for testing". Accordingly, the procedure specified in S7.4.2 includes placement of the front wheel that could result in the entire test device being within the threshold area prior to the platform being lowered. This also includes placement that results in a portion of the test device being on the platform.

Given the discussion above, a system such as you described would not comply when tested under S7.4.2. As such, there is no discrepancy between the requirement of S6.1.3 and the test procedure specified in S7.4.

If you have any additional questions, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-0536.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:403#404
d.11/3/05