ID: aiam3202

Dear Mr. Kawano: This responds to your recent request for an interpretation concernin the proper designated seating capacity for the rear seat in several Toyota vehicle models (Corolla Sedan, Corolla Coupe, Corona Sedan and Starlet). You assert that the rear seat hip room in these models ranges from 39.4 inches to 42.6 inches, and ask whether the vehicles would qualify as having only two designated seating positions.; Under the strict measurement technique specified in the amende definition of 'designated seating position' (SAE J1100a), the Toyota vehicle models in question would have the hip room dimensions you state. This is due to the fact that the SAE procedure specifies that hip room is to be the minimum dimension of the seat cushion. The Toyota designs include wheel wells and contoured side paddings at the intersection of the seat back and seat cushion that establish the minimum dimension of the seat. However, these structures only extend out 4 to 5 inches (approximation) from the seat back. If the hip room of the rear seats is measured midway of the seat cushion, all of the designs have greater than 50 inches of hip room, and ostensibly should have three designated seating positions. Nevertheless, since according to the measurement technique specified in the definition these seats have substantially less than 50 inches of hip room, the agency must conclude that the rear seats could qualify as having only two designated seating positions. This opinion is accompanied with several candid remarks, however.; The effective hip room of the Toyota seat designs is much greater tha the approximately 40 inches that is obtained by the technical measuring technique specified in the definition. If two outboard occupants move their hips several inches forward from the seat back in these vehicle designs, the wheel-wells and contoured side paddings are no longer impediments and there is over 50 inches of hip room, as noted above. Moreover, the design of these rear seats is such that use of the center position is 'invited.' There is at least 10 to 12 inches of well-padded hip room at the center portion of the seat between the inboard ends of the two seat belt assemblies installed in the seats. The manufacturer has given no indication that this space is not intended for occupancy. The agency is also concerned that this center position has no belt assembly to secure a child restraint system, particularly since the rear- center seat is statistically the safest position in a vehicle.; Frankly, with the wide center space that is available in these rea seat designs, we do not believe the manufacturer has made a sincere attempt to indicate to vehicle occupants that the seats are intended for use by only two occupants. It would be a simple matter for the manufacturer to make this obvious by use of a fixed armrest or some other impediment to use of the position. Furthermore, we believe that this message can be given to occupants without otherwise compromising the design the manufacturer wishes to achieve. If the manufacturer does not in fact wish to market the vehicles as having three-passenger rear seats, we do not understand why wide, well-padded center positions are present.; Finally, I am enclosing a copy of an earlier interpretation whic discusses the measurement procedure included in the definition of 'designated seating position.' As that interpretation pointed out, the agency will not allow manufacturers to avoid the obvious intent of the definition by finding 'loopholes' in the specified measurement procedure. If designs such as those displayed in the Toyota vehicles persist, without some clear indication that the center position is not to be used, the agency may find it necessary to amend the definition to provide that the hip room measurement is to be taken at the midpoint of the seat cushion. We hope that manufacturers will voluntarily alter designs of this type to conform to the intent of the definition, so that such an amendment is not necessary.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3201

Dear Mr. Kawano: This responds to your recent request for an interpretation concernin the proper designated seating capacity for the rear seat in several Toyota vehicle models (Corolla Sedan, Corolla Coupe, Corona Sedan and Starlet). You assert that the rear seat hip room in these models ranges from 39.4 inches to 42.6 inches, and ask whether the vehicles would qualify as having only two designated seating positions.; Under the strict measurement technique specified in the amende definition of 'designated seating position' (SAE J1100a), the Toyota vehicle models in question would have the hip room dimensions you state. This is due to the fact that the SAE procedure specifies that hip room is to be the minimum dimension of the seat cushion. The Toyota designs include wheel wells and contoured side paddings at the intersection of the seat back and seat cushion that establish the minimum dimension of the seat. However, these structures only extend out 4 to 5 inches (approximation) from the seat back. If the hip room of the rear seats is measured midway of the seat cushion, all of the designs have greater than 50 inches of hip room, and ostensibly should have three designated seating positions. Nevertheless, since according to the measurement technique specified in the definition these seats have substantially less than 50 inches of hip room, the agency must conclude that the rear seats could qualify as having only two designated seating positions. This opinion is accompanied with several candid remarks, however.; The effective hip room of the Toyota seat designs is much greater tha the approximately 40 inches that is obtained by the technical measuring technique specified in the definition. If two outboard occupants move their hips several inches forward from the seat back in these vehicle designs, the wheel-wells and contoured side paddings are no longer impediments and there is over 50 inches of hip room, as noted above. Moreover, the design of these rear seats is such that use of the center position is 'invited.' There is at least 10 to 12 inches of well-padded hip room at the center portion of the seat between the inboard ends of the two seat belt assemblies installed in the seats. The manufacturer has given no indication that this space is not intended for occupancy. The agency is also concerned that this center position has no belt assembly to secure a child restraint system, particularly since the rear- center seat is statistically the safest position in a vehicle.; Frankly, with the wide center space that is available in these rea seat designs, we do not believe the manufacturer has made a sincere attempt to indicate to vehicle occupants that the seats are intended for use by only two occupants. It would be a simple matter for the manufacturer to make this obvious by use of a fixed armrest or some other impediment to use of the position. Furthermore, we believe that this message can be given to occupants without otherwise compromising the design the manufacturer wishes to achieve. If the manufacturer does not in fact wish to market the vehicles as having three-passenger rear seats, we do not understand why wide, well-padded center positions are present.; Finally, I am enclosing a copy of an earlier interpretation whic discusses the measurement procedure included in the definition of 'designated seating position.' As that interpretation pointed out, the agency will not allow manufacturers to avoid the obvious intent of the definition by finding 'loopholes' in the specified measurement procedure. If designs such as those displayed in the Toyota vehicles persist, without some clear indication that the center position is not to be used, the agency may find it necessary to amend the definition to provide that the hip room measurement is to be taken at the midpoint of the seat cushion. We hope that manufacturers will voluntarily alter designs of this type to conform to the intent of the definition, so that such an amendment is not necessary.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: nht94-2.66

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: May 4, 1994

FROM: Richard Kreutziger -- Executive Director, New York State Distributors Ass'n. (OCC-9945)

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/18/94 from John Womack to Richard Kreutziger (A42; Std. 217)

TEXT:

I have today received the preliminary data from one of the members of NYSBDA the following "fax".

As noted in the preliminary data of FMVSS 217 - there are a number of bus body distributors. As also noted these are small business operations and many, many things affect their ability to carry on a successful company profitable operation. Among the " things" is keeping current with the "school bus regulations". In the process of their daily business - the sales and pricing of their vehicles to comply with the requirements of state and federal regulations and standards is very important. I hope you are readily able to realize the point I am trying to make. Quick changes can be very detrimental to that profit factor as well as the individual position of accountability to, not only their customers - but to themselves.

As you can readily view from the following "fax" there are certain "conditions" that are acceptable to the manufacturer.

We have a special position here in New York State - in that the state regulations exceed the minimum 217 requirements (except for placement of left side emergency door). NYS requires added emergency exits, such as push-out windows and roof hatches based upon capacity of the vehicle.

The distributors now are faced here in New York State with a very large unknown factor. To meet the state regulations - for door (L/S/E/D) placement - with folding seat cushion - longer body length - aisle dimension factor at L/S/E/D. Anything that you can furnish and supply to me in a timely fashion - to help my association membership will be greatly appreciated.

Attachment

CARPENTER MANUFACTURING, INC.

BULLETIN NO. 94 - 34 May 3, 1994

TO: All Carpenter Distributors

SUBJECT: EMERGENCY EXIT - DELAYED EFFECTIVE DATE

NHTSA has postponed enactment of certain parts of FMVSS 217 relative to emergency exits; this change was to have taken effect on May 2, 1994. We were notified by fax on May 2nd that the effective date of the "additional emergency exit" requirement "has been delayed until September 1, 1994."

Carpenter will allow its distributors to omit certain options on orders currently in-house at no change order fee, provided the following conditions are met:

1. Order is not on schedule or started at time of receipt of change order; 2. Change order must be received by Friday, 5/13/94; 3. Only options on list below can be deleted or changed; 4. No pre-built orders can be changed; 5. Body length change will require cancellation of current order and resubmission of new order at current pricing.

Approved option deletions are:

1. Side emergency door and related components; 2. Flip seats and 4-logged seats; 3. Heater plumbing and routing; 4. Roof hatches and push-out sash not required by state specs.

Please note that the rear door hold-open device and reflective striping around the rear door opening will still be required and cannot be deleted.

You must keep in mind that orders are being schedule constantly; therefore, it is important to get any change order faxed as soon as possible. You will be notified by Martin Miller as to whether or not your change order can be accepted.

You may cover more than one body order on each change order, but all bodies on a given change order must have identical changes.

Todd Bontrager Asst. Vice President of Sales School Bus Division

ID: nht94-6.4

DATE: May 4, 1994

FROM: Richard Kreutziger -- Executive Director, New York State Distributors Ass'n. (OCC-9945)

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/18/94 from John Womack to Richard Kreutziger (A42; Std. 217)

TEXT:

I have today received the preliminary data from one of the members of NYSBDA the following "fax".

As noted in the preliminary data of FMVSS 217 - there are a number of bus body distributors. As also noted these are small business operations and many, many things affect their ability to carry on a successful company profitable operation. Among the "things" is keeping current with the "school bus regulations". In the process of their daily business - the sales and pricing of their vehicles to comply with the requirements of state and federal regulations and standards is very important. I hope you are readily able to realize the point I am trying to make. Quick changes can be very detrimental to that profit factor as well as the individual position of accountability to, not only their customers - but to themselves.

As you can readily view from the following "fax" there are certain "conditions" that are acceptable to the manufacturer.

We have a special position here in New York State - in that the state regulations exceed the minimum 217 requirements (except for placement of left side emergency door). NYS requires added emergency exits, such as push-out windows and roof hatches based upon capacity of the vehicle.

The distributors now are faced here in New York State with a very large unknown factor. To meet the state regulations - for door (L/S/E/D) placement - with folding seat cushion - longer body length - aisle dimension factor at L/S/E/D. Anything that you can furnish and supply to me in a timely fashion - to help my association membership will be greatly appreciated.

Attachment

CARPENTER MANUFACTURING, INC.

BULLETIN NO. 94 - 34

May 3, 1994 TO: All Carpenter Distributors

SUBJECT: EMERGENCY EXIT - DELAYED EFFECTIVE DATE

NHTSA has postponed enactment of certain parts of FMVSS 217 relative to emergency exits; this change was to have taken effect on May 2, 1994. We were notified by fax on May 2nd that the effective date of the "additional emergency exit" requirement "has been delayed until September 1, 1994."

Carpenter will allow its distributors to omit certain options on orders currently in-house at no change order fee, provided the following conditions are met:

1. Order is not on schedule or started at time of receipt of change order; 2. Change order must be received by Friday, 5/13/94; 3. Only options on list below can be deleted or changed; 4. No pre-built orders can be changed; 5. Body length change will require cancellation of current order and resubmission of new order at current pricing.

Approved option deletions are:

1. Side emergency door and related components; 2. Flip seats and 4-logged seats; 3. Heater plumbing and routing; 4. Roof hatches and push-out sash not required by state specs.

Please note that the rear door hold-open device and reflective striping around the rear door opening will still be required and cannot be deleted.

You must keep in mind that orders are being schedule constantly; therefore, it is important to get any change order faxed as soon as possible. You will be notified by Martin Miller as to whether or not your change order can be accepted.

You may cover more than one body order on each change order, but all bodies on a given change order must have identical changes.

Todd Bontrager Asst. Vice President of Sales School Bus Division

ID: 1984-3.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/13/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Hino Motors Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter concerning your meeting with Mr. Oesch and Ms. Hom of my staff. As you requested, this letter confirms and clarifies the answers to the questions you asked in your meeting concerning Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity.

The answers to all of your questions are based on our understanding that Hino Motors would be furnishing a bare chassis to a final-stage manufacturer who adds a school bus body to complete the vehicle. The answers to your questions are as follows:

1) If Hino Motors is producing an incomplete vehicle, as that term is defined in Part 568.3, then Part 568, Vehicles manufactured in two or more stages, sets forth the requirements Hino must meet. Part 568.4 sets forth the specific information you must provide in an incomplete vehicle document. Part 568 does not require you to certify the incomplete vehicle as complying with the requirements of Standard No. 301. It does require you to make one of the statements set forth in Part 568.4(a)(7).

2) Part 568.4(b) requires each incomplete vehicle manufacturer to provide an incomplete vehicle document. The document must either be attached to the incomplete vehicle or sent directly to a final-stage manufacturer, intermediate manufacturer or purchaser for purposes other than resale to whom the incomplete vehicle is delivered.

3) Part 568.6 requires each final-stage manufacturer to complete the vehicle in such a manner so that it conforms to all applicable standards and to attach the certification label required by Section 567.5 of Part 567, Certification.

4) As an incomplete vehicle manufacturer, Hino Motors need only comply with Part 568. I note that Part 568.7 permits an incomplete vehicle manufacturer to assume voluntarily all of the duties and liabilities imposed by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act on the final-stage manufacturer. If Hino were to assume those duties, then Hino would have to affix the label required by Part 567.5(e).

5) The crash test in Standard No. 301 sets forth the procedures the agency will use in conducting its compliance tests. A manufacturer is not required to conduct crash tests, but may instead rely on such things as engineering analyses or computer modelling to determine if a vehicle complies with a standard.

6) As discussed above, Standard No. 301 sets forth the test procedure the agency will use in its testing. Section 6.5 of the standard provides that the moving barrier test for school buses may be conducted at "any point and angle" on the schoolbus. If a manufacturer is going to do crash testing, the type of testing it uses is left up to the manufacturer. The agency urges manufacturers using crash testing to conduct a test (angle and location of impact) which represents the most difficult test for the vehicle. The maximum speed in the agency's crash test for schoolbuses is 30 mph.

7) At present, there are no pending notices proposing to modify the requirements of Standard No. 301.

B) 1. and 2. The Office of Chief Counsel issues all of the agency's interpretations of the safety standards. Copies of all of our interpretations can be obtained from the Docket Section, Room 5109, 400 7th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. Copies of the agency's compliance test reports can be obtained from our Technical Reference Division, Room 5108 at the same address.

Your final questions concern the requirements of S7.1.6(c) of Standard No. 301. You are correct that the test is to be performed on a completed vehicle. If Hino wishes to do crash testing of its chassis, it can be done in the bodyless condition. Since the chassis has no seats, we would suggest you attach the test weight of 120 pounds per designated seating position directly to the chassis.

Mr. Oesch and Ms. Hom have asked me to thank you for sending them a copy of the photograph you took.

Sincerely,

HINO HINO MOTORS, LTD.

Our ref. TUSA-90809

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation

Attention: Stephen Oesch

Thank you for your kind attentions to us during our recent visit to your place. Many thanks to your sincere reply to our questions concerning FMVSS.

We would like to confirm the content of your reply and make additive questions.

I. Confirmation of the content of your reply on that day.

1. FMVSS No. 301: Concerning Fuel System Integrity

1) In case we supply school bus chassis and the body manufacturer makes the body and completes the vehicle, we must certify this FMVSS in chassis condition (without body).

2) Moreover, we should issue to the Body mfr. "Incomplete Vehicle Document" attached to the vehicle.

3) After this Body mfr. should certify it as a completed vehicle.

4) All we have to do on this regulation is sufficient with this and nothing more is necessary.

5) The requirement of this regulation is to meet the items and value of the regulation, and the actual crash test itself isn't indispensable condition. That is to say, either by calculation or by test, we only have to certify that our vehicle meets the requirements of this regulation.

6) Test condition of Crash Test Concerning crashing speed, point, angle and etc, the manufacturer shall establish the condition judged with basis as the most strict. That is all depends on the idea of Hino. By the way, it is proper to consider that crash speed is the Max. speed; 30 MPH.

7) There is no movement of revision on this regulation for the present.

B. General Item

1) Concerning "Interpretation" and "Test Results", it is possible to read and copy (including request of copy in written form) them. By the way, "Interpretation" and "Test Results" are kept in Room 5109 and Room 5108 respectively.

2) Mr. Berndt: Chief Counsel (Tel 202-426-9511) is the proper person to inquire about FMVSS in written form from now on.

II. Additional questions

1. Judging from S7.1.6.(c) about FMVSS No. 301 S7 Test Condition, this test is supposed to be performed by completed vehicle. Please advise us about the Test Condition when we perform the test by chassis condition. For example,

Is test vehicle in bodyless chassis condition as Hino shipment?

In case the vehicle is bodyless, how will the weight loading condition as the establishment of weight condition 120 lb in design seat position of S7.1.6.(c)?

We will appreciate your early reply.

Please say hello to Ms. Deirdre F. Hom And enclosed please find your photographs taken during our stay in your office as a good memory.

Thanking you again for your kind attentions.

Takabumi Akaboshi Deputy Manager Technical Department Technical Division Overseas Operations

ID: 1985-03.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/09/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Yoshikazu Ito, Manager, Tokai Rika Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Yoshikazu Ito, Manager Technical Operations Section Overseas Operations Dept. Tokai Rika Co., Ltd. Oguchi-Cho, Aichi Pref. 480-01 Japan

Thank you for your letter concerning the buckle release requirements of Standard No. 208. Occupant Crash Protection. I apologize for the delay in responding to it. You asked for an interpretation of the requirement in S4.5.3.3(a) of the standard that automatic belts must have an emergency release mechanism that is "readily accessible to a seated occupant." The following discussion addresses the specific questions you asked.

The purpose of the "readily accessible" requirement is to ensure that a seated occupant can quickly and easily grasp and then release the buckle in an emergency. You explained that you have been reviewing the accessibility of possible installation locations for the emergency release by using a 5th percentile female and 50th percentile male test dummy in various seating positions. You ask whether in determining if the buckle is readily accessible, you can move the pelvic portion of the test dummy or move the seat back to permit the grasping of the buckle.

The purpose of S4.5.3.3(a) is twofold. First, it is intended to make sure automatic belts are adjustable to fit a wide range of vehicle occupants, as specified in S7.1 of the standard. In addition, it is meant to ensure that the emergency release mechanism for the automatic belt is readily accessible to that same range of occupants. Thus, the release mechanism should be accessible to those occupants with the seat in any design position without the occupant having to take special steps, such as moving the seat back, to grasp and operate the release. I note that the drawing you attached to your letter indicates that your emergency release is located within the latchplate access zone specified in S7.4.4 of the standard. Although S7.4.4 does not apply to the emergency release mechanism of automatic belts, its purpose is to make it easy for occupants to reach the latchplate of a safety belt system. We would consider any emergency release mechanism required by S4.5.3.3(a) that is within the latchplate access zone of S7.4.4 to be readily accessible as long as the occupant does not have to take any special steps to grasp and operate the release.

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

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

TOKAI RIDA CO., LTD.

ESL85/1-7955 February 22, 1985

Ms. Betrinere Stewart Library Technician Technical Reference Division National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington D.C. 20590 U. S. A.

Dear Ms. Stewart:

Although somewhat belatedly, I would like to express my sincere appreciation to your many kindest assistances extended to me when I visited your office. The information we received from you is very valuable.

In the meantime, we have some questions regarding how a sentence of Standard No. 208 should be interpreted, and its details are explained in the attachment.

Would you therefore please give us appropriate answer, and if you are not in a position to reply, you would kindly pass this question to a competent officer so that we may receive the answer.

Your favourable consideration in this matter would be much appreciated.

Yours sincerely,

TOKAI RIKA CO., LTD.

Yoshikazu Ito, Manager Technical Operations Section Overseas Operations Dept.

YI/yi

Attachments

CC: Mr. T. Tanabe, TR/USO

Stipulation: S4.5.3.3, No. 208

An automatic belt furnished pursuant to S4.5.3. shall: (a) conform to S7.1 and have a single emergency release mechanism whose components are readily accessible to a seated occupant.

1. Background of the question:

In designing of a certain passive belt system to be installed on our customer's vehicles, a detachable type buckle for emergency release is built in.

When installing the system on the vehicles, it is difficult for a seated occupant to access to the buckle in some cases (See attachment). So we ask you to give us your appropriate interpretation on the following cases.

2. Question

-1. What is a meaning of the sentence, " ..... whose components are readily accessible to a seated occupant"?

(Our Interpretation)

"readily accessible to" means strictly that a seated occupant can grasp the buckle and then release it in case of emergency.

-2. When reviewing installation condition by using Alderson female dummy (5th percentile), at any seating position (forwardmost, neutral or rearmost), if it is difficult that the dummy access to the buckle, whether the following condition(s) are permitted or not:

a. an occupant (dummy) would be permitted to raise her pelvic portion slightly in order to grasp the buckle.

b. an occupant (dummy) would be permitted to bring down the seat-back in order to grasp easily the buckle.

-3. When reviewing installation condition by using Alderson male dummy (50th percentile), at forwardmost and neutral seating position, if it is difficult that the dummy access to the buckle, whether the followings are permitted or not:

a. the same to above condition - 2-a.

b. the same to above condition - 2-b.

ID: 77-3.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/13/77

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

TO: Busby and Rehm

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of June 21, 1977, requesting our office to advise the U. S. Customs Service that a new "camper" vehicle manufactured by Subaru would be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in contradiction of a previous letter from the NHTSA to Customs.

As noted by Mr. Armstrong of this agency in his letter of January 17, 1977, to the Customs Service, the NHTSA does not assign or approve in advance a classification for a particular vehicle design. Any ultimate agency determination as to vehicle classification would generally arise only in the context of compliance or enforcement proceedings. The NHTSA does issue advance opinions concerning vehicle classification when requested to do so by vehicle manufacturers. These opinions are necessarily qualified, however, by statements that the opinion is based solely on the description of the vehicle as supplied by the person making the request. Our opinion as to classification is, of course, dependent on the manner in which the vehicle is described.

As defined in 49 CFR 571.3, a "truck" is a motor vehicle designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment. A "multipurpose passenger vehicle" is defined in Section 571.3 as a vehicle designed to carry 10 persons or less which is contructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation. The Subaru "camper" is constructed on a truck chassis and has special features for off-road use (4-wheel drive), which would qualify it as a multipurpose passenger vehicle. Therefore, the determinative question is whether the Subaru vehicle is designed primarily for carrying property, in which case it would be classified a truck.

In spite of the Subaru vehicle's resemblance to a pick-up truck or Ranchero, there is a basic distinction in design. In the case of a pick-up or Ranchero truck there is a separate vehicle area that is clearly designed for cargo-carrying alone. In the case of the Subaru vehicle, however, the manufacturer has placed seats for two people in the area that would ordinarily be used for carrying property. Since the manufacturer has chosen to use that area for the purpose of carrying passengers, it cannot be said that the vehicle is designed primarily for carrying property.

Based on this rationale, the NHTSA concludes that the Subaru "camper" qualifies as a "multipurpose passenger vehicle," and that the preliminary opinion of the Office of Standards Enforcement was inaccurate. I would point out, however, that the Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to multipurpose passenger vehicles are equally as stringent as the standards applicable to trucks, if not more so.

SINCERELY,

BUSBY AND REHM

June 21, 1977

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

On behalf of our client, Subaru of America, Inc. (Subaru). we hereby request that you send a letter to the U.S. Customs Service (Customs) correcting advice that the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (NHTSA) gave Customs in light of incomplete and indeed misleading information furnished to NHTSA.

In the next few months, Subaru intends to import a new vehicle -- to be known as a camper -- that is a modification of its station wagon and has an open area in the rear with two permanent seats facing backwards. It is intended primarily to move people, rather than cargo, and will be used both on and off highway by hunters, fishermen, campers, and the like. In its letters to Customs dated March 19 and June 1, 1976, Subaru provided a full description of the design and operation of the vehicle, and copies of these letters are enclosed for your information. Also enclosed is a photograph of the rear area showing the permanent seats.

On October 1, 1976, Customs issued a formal ruling concluding that the Subaru camper is not a truck. A copy of this ruling is also enclosed. Recently, the District Director of Customs in Houston, Texas, has requested reconsideration of this ruling taking the position that the vehicle is a truck. In support of his position, he submitted his letter of December 15, 1976, to Mr. Robert Aubuchon of NHTSA and a letter of January 17, 1977, from Mr. Francis Armstrong of NHTSA, the letter stating that "we concur with your opinion that the vehicle is classifiable as a truck." Copies of these two letters are also enclosed.

We believe, first, that NHTSA was misled by the District Director's letter of December 15, 1976, and, second, that a review of all the encloures will make it clear that the Subaru camper is, under NHTSA's own definitions, not a truck, but rather a multipurpose passenger vehicle.

As to our first point, we would emphasize two portions of the District Director's letter, in particular. In the first place, he refers to "lightweight trucks, such as the type shown in the enclosed photograph [that is, the Subaru camper]." But the District Director fails to state that this vehicle had already been formally determined by Customs not to be a truck. In the second place, the letter states that Customs "has been informed by the manufacturer that the '. . . design or appearance of the . . . vehicle is that of the El Canino and Ranchero, domestically produced vehicles, but smaller.'" The El Camino and Ranchero are admittedly considered pickup trucks. But Subaru never made the statement attributed to it, as a review of its letters of March 19 and June 1, 1976, will reveal. More importantly, the statement was made in Customs' ruling, and it was in spite of its appearance that the vehicle was determined not to be a truck.

As to our second point, the following two definitions included in section 571.3(b) of NHTSA's regulations are pertinent:

"'Multipurpose passenger vehicle' means a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation."

"'Truck' means a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment."

The Subaru camper is not a truck, since it is designed primarily for the transportation of people, not property or special purpose equipment. This was the critical conclusion of the last paragraph of Customs' ruling. That conclusion is wholly consistent with the design, intended use, and designation of the Subaru camper. It is designed as a modified station wagon with the rear seat facing backward rather than forward, and in the open rather than enclosed. It is intended to be used to carry persons and only a limited amount of equipment -- not exceeding 250 pounds with all four seats occupied. It will be designated and advertised as a passenger vehicle, with a special warning against using it as a pickup truck.

The Subaru camper clearly satisfies the definition of a multipurpose passenger vehicle. It is a vehicle designed to carry four persons, and it is constructed with special features for occasional off-road operation. These features include four-wheel drive and the open rear area.

The views of NHTSA will have a decided bearing on the decision of Customs whether to confirm its ruling of October 1, 1976. We believe that you will agree that NHTSA was not given a full and fair statement of the facts before Mr. Armstrong signed the letter dated January 17, 1977. We therefore respectfully request that you send a letter to Mr. Salvatore E. Caramagno, the signer of Customs' ruling, advising him that, based upon a review of the entire record, the Subaru camper is a multipurpose passenger vehicle. Such a letter would ensure both a sound and a fair disposition of the District Director's request for reconsideration.

John B. Rehm

cc: TAYLOR VINSON

ID: 1923y

Mr. Martin M. Ginsburg
Proline Designs
25206 Loytan Street
Torrance, CA 90505

Dear Mr. Ginsburg:

This responds to your letters asking whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR /571.302), applies to the "interior window coverings" that you manufacture for "pick up truck shells." In your letters, you briefly explain that the "shell," which is sold as an aftermarket product, "is placed directly over the bed of a truck." The answer to your question is no, Standard No. 302 does not apply to your product. I regret the delay in responding to your letter.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not grant approval of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on our understanding of the facts provided in your letter.

There are two factors which lead us to conclude that Standard No. 302 does not apply to your window coverings. First, you manufacture an aftermarket item of equipment--i.e., an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle sold to owners of used vehicles. Standard No. 302 regulates the flammability resistance of curtains and shades in new completed vehicles only.

Second, even if the shell and its window coverings were installed on a new vehicle prior to the vehicle's first sale to a consumer, Standard No. 302 applies only to components in the "occupant compartment air space" (S4), which the agency has indicated is the area in which persons are likely to use to ride. Assuming that we are correct in believing that people do not typically ride in the enclosed bed of the truck, we conclude that the area enclosed by the shell would not be an occupant compartment. This accords with the agency's February 15, 1983 letter to Mr. Nakaya in which NHTSA stated that, with regard to vans, the space to the rear of the rearmost seat was not part of the occupant compartment. Accordingly, since the window coverings in question are not located in the occupant compartment, we conclude that they are not subject to Standard No. 302.

Nevertheless, there are two matters that you ought to consider when manufacturing your window coverings. First is the possibility of liability under State and common law if the coverings were to catch fire in a situation where a window covering meeting Standard No. 302's flammability resistance requirements would not have caught fire, or if the coverings burn much more rapidly than coverings meeting those requirements.

Second is the possibility of a finding of a safety-related defect in your products. While Standard No. 302 does not directly apply to your product, you should be aware that the window coverings you manufacture are considered to be items of motor vehicle equipment. As the manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are thereby subject to the provisions set forth in sections 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of equipment with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If you or this agency determined that your product had a defect relating to motor vehicle safety, you would have to notify all known purchasers of the defect and either repair your product so that the defect is removed, or replace the window coverings with an identical or reasonably equivalent product that does not contain a defect.

Your letter did not indicate whether you also manufacture the truck shell to which you refer. If you are the shell manufacturer, and if your product contains glazing material, Standard No. 205 (49 CFR /571.205, Glazing Materials) directly applies to your product. Standard No. 205 is an equipment standard which sets performance requirements for glazing materials used in new and used motor vehicles and glazing materials sold as items of motor vehicle equipment, including glazing used in truck shells. The standard establishes both performance requirements, including those regulating the light transmittance and abrasion resistance of glazing, and labeling requirements applicable to the glazing used in your product.

We note also that, since your description of the "shell" was very brief, we were not certain whether the term "shell" as you use it includes what our regulations refer to as a "slide-in camper." Under Standard No. 126, Truck-Camper Loading (49 CFR /571.126), a "slide-in camper" is a structure having a roof, floor, and sides, designed for the purpose of providing shelter for persons and to be mounted on and removed from the cargo area of a truck by the user. (See, also, 49 CFR /575.103 for NHTSA's consumer information requirements for trucks that are capable of accommodating slide-in campers.) In light of the possibility that the structures to which you refer are slide-in campers, and that you might be the manufacturer of the campers, we would like to mention our regulations that apply to slide-in campers.

Briefly, each slide-in camper must meet Standard No. 205 for any glazing materials used in the camper. In addition, Standard No. 126 requires each slide-in camper to be permanently labeled with information including its maximum loaded weight. This standard also requires each camper to be furnished with an owner's manual that includes information on total camper weight, proper matching of a truck and slide-in camper, appropriate methods of camper loading, and how to determine the camper's center of gravity (cg) and where the cg should be placed in the truck cargo area. All campers must also be certified in accordance with section 114 of the Vehicle Safety Act as conforming to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Each camper manufacturer must submit certain information concerning its company pursuant to Part 566 of our regulations, Manufacturer Identification. However, Standard No. 302 does not apply to slide-in campers, even if the slide-in camper is installed on a new pickup truck.

Finally, we must decline your request that we review "California Health and Safety Code Standard No. 19" to inform you whether window coverings that meet the California standard can meet Standard No. 302. NHTSA determines whether a vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment complies with an applicable safety standard by purchasing vehicles and equipment and testing them under strict conditions according to the procedures specified in the standards. Thus, we determine whether a product subject to our standards complies with those standards by assessing the actual performance of the product in our tests. Since your window coverings are not subject to Standard No. 302, they will not be part of our compliance testing. Further, even if the coverings were subject to Standard No. 302, we have already noted that it is the responsibility of the manufacturer of the motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment--and not NHTSA--to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable FMVSS's.

I have enclosed copies of all of the safety standards and regulations mentioned above, and an information sheet explaining how you can obtain copies of NHTSA regulations for your future reference. I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures /ref:302#126 d:7/27/89

ID: aiam3920

Dear Mr. Martin: This responds to your January 24, 1985 letter to the National Highwa Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) asking about our school bus safety standards.; Your first question asked whether a bus manufactured to accommodate passengers and 3 wheelchair positions to be used for carrying students would be classified as a school bus. The answer to your question is yes. Whether a vehicle is a school bus depends on the seating capacity of the vehicle. NHTSA determines the seating capacity of a motor vehicle by identifying the number of designated seating positions, as defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3, in the vehicle. 'Designated seating position' is defined as:; >>>any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least a large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design and vehicle design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jumpseats....<<<; Consistent with this definition, we have also counted position designed to accommodate wheelchairs in determining vehicle seating capacity for the determination of vehicle classification. Since your vehicle carries 10 passengers plus a driver, for a total of 11 persons, it is a school bus under Part 571.3 of our regulations.; The second part of this question asked whether this vehicle would b required to comply with the seating requirements of FMVSS No. 222. The answer is yes. Each new school bus must comply with all applicable requirements of Standard No. 222. Some different requirements apply to school buses having gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less, than to school buses with GVWR's greater than 10,000 pounds. For example, the seat spacing requirements of Standard No. 222 do not apply to the lighter school buses, since these vehicles are required to have safety belts.; Your second question asked whether a vehicle manufactured to carry student passengers would be classified as a school bus. The answer is no. Such a vehicle does not have the passenger capacity of a bus, and is thus not a school bus. Although the school bus safety standards would not apply to this vehicle, it would have to meet the standards set for a multipurpose passenger vehicle.; Your third and fourth questions concerned side facing seats fo handicapped passengers. You first asked whether seat barriers must be placed forward and rearward of a side facing seat, when the seat is positioned between rows of forward facing seats.; I assume that you are concerned with buses having GVWR's greater tha 10,000 pounds, since the seat spacing requirements of S5.2 of Standard No. 222 apply only to these heavier school buses. In a preamble to a July 12, 1976, Federal Register notice (41 FR 28506), the agency determined that the seat spacing requirements of S5.2 are not appropriate for side facing seats designed to accommodate handicapped or convalescent passengers. Therefore, a restraining barrier is not required forward of a side facing seat. However, a restraining barrier must be provided rearward of any side facing seat that has a forward facing seat next to it, in order to compartmentalize the passengers in the forward facing seat.; Your fourth question assumed that S5.2 applied to side facing seats You asked whether the back of a forward facing seat positioned in front of a side facing seat could be used to meet the barrier requirements of S5.2. As discussed above, S5.2 does not apply to side facing seats.; Your fifth question asked whether safety belts are required for sid facing seats on school buses with GVWR's of 10,000 pounds or less, and on school buses with GVWR's greater than 10,000 pounds. For school buses with GVWR's of 10,000 pounds or less, Standard No. 222 requires that the applicable specifications of Standard Nos. 208, 209, and 210, be met 'at all seating positions other than the driver's seat.' Thus each seating position in a small school bus must have a safety belt and anchorages that comply with the applicable requirements of those standards. Side facing seats on the heavier school buses are not required to have safety belts.; Your sixth question asked if we have information on the use of shoulde straps and harnesses with lap belts for passenger seats on school buses. NHTSA has not conducted any tests on the use of shoulder straps or harnesses with safety belts on school buses. You might want to contact school bus manufacturers to discuss how 3-point belt systems can be used in school buses.; Your last question asked whether NHTSA has any plans at the present t delete the safety belt requirements for school buses with GVWR's of 10,000 pounds or less. Although NHTSA has no present plans to delete the safety belt requirement for the lighter school buses, the agency is presently reviewing the Canadian test data to which you referred in your letter. If we believe there is a need to propose to amend Standard No. 222, the public will have an opportunity to submit comments.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4374

Dear Mr. Crytzer: This responds to your letter to our office and a telephone call betwee Trooper Monko of your department and Deirdre Hom of my staff, concerning how the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and our regulations affect a certain modification of a school bus. I apologize for the delay in our response.; You explained in your letter and enclosures that the vehicle i question is a school bus with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) less than 10,000 pounds. The vehicle is being *leased* by the Governor Mifflin school district from a local dealer, Wolfington Body Company, who bought the vehicle from the school bus manufacturer, Collins Industries. Your letter said that Collins delivered the vehicle to Wolfington with an extra side door 'in place.' The side door was provided for purposes of installing a wheelchair lift. You stated that Wolfington could have installed a wheelchair lift, if it had wished to do so, however, in the case at hand, Wolfington sealed the door and installed rear seats provided by Collins in the bus.; You first ask whether the school bus dealer (Wolfington) is prohibite by Federal law from sealing the side door and installing the rear seats. The answer is no. However, Federal law does impose limitations on the modifications that may be made. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A) states:; >>>No manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repai business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, 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 . . . .<<<; Section 108(a)(2)(A) prohibits Wolfington from either removing disconnecting or degrading the performance of safety equipment or designs installed in compliance with applicable Federal safety standards. Thus, the school bus dealer cannot seal the door if the door had been installed on the vehicle to meet the requirements for emergency exits found in Standard No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release*. In the case you describe, the school bus was provided with a rear emergency door which presumably satisfies Standard No. 217's requirements for emergency exits. If the school bus is able to meet the requirements of the standard notwithstanding the sealed side door, then there is no 'rendering inoperative' of the vehicle's compliance with the school bus emergency exit requirements.; Nevertheless, Wolfington must ensure that no other safety design o item of equipment installed pursuant to applicable Federal safety standards was rendered inoperative by its modifications. For instance, the performance of the fuel system must be maintained to the level required by Standard No. 301, *Fuel System Integrity*. Similarly, Wolfington must ensure that the seats previously certified to Standard No. 222, *School Bus Seating and Crash protection*, maintained their levels of performance.; Trooper Monko requested information on the Federal requirement applying to Collins and Wolfington, if Collins had delivered the school bus with the door sealed to Wolfington, the purchaser, and Wolfington had installed the lift and removed the rearmost seats. Wolfington is subject to the 'render inoperative' provisions of S108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act in this situation, just as it is in the situation discussed earlier. Thus, Wolfington must ensure that its modifications do not negatively affect the compliance of safety equipment and designs with Federal safety standards. Notably, the fuel system and seats on the school bus must continue to meet the applicable safety standards.; We note that a different set of our regulations would apply i Wolfington had obtained a new school bus from Collins to *resell* it to a school district. These regulations apply to the alteration of *new* vehicles, and impose certification responsibilities on dealers modifying new vehicles. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you are interested in those regulations.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel