ID: aiam5390

Dear Mr. Anderson: This responds to your letter of May 19, 1994 requesting an interpretation of the requirements of S5.5.3(c) of Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release. Section S5.5.3(c) reads: 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 ... Your letter states that you are unable to continuously outline the perimeter of the rear emergency doors on your school buses due to the proximity of door hinges, tail light lenses, and a rubber gasket between the bottom edge of the door and the bumper. You ask: Would we be in compliance with Reflective Tape requirements of FMVSS 217 if we put a continuous strip of tape across the top of both Emergency Rear Doors on the roof cap above the doors and down the left and right side of the double door opening with breaks in the tape for door hinges & tail light lenses. This would outline the Emergency Rear Doors on three sides. No tape would be put across the bottom? As an alternative, if the above is not acceptable, could we put tape across the bottom on the doors? As explained below, your planned placement for the top and sides of the door, and your alternative placement for the bottom of the door would be acceptable. In a July 7, 1993 letter to the Blue Bird Body Company, NHTSA stated: NHTSA interprets S5.5.3(c) to allow interruptions in the tape necessary to avoid and/or accommodate curved surfaces and functional components, such as rivets,rubrails, hinges and handles, provided, however, that the following requisites are met. In the November 2, 1992, final rule, NHTSA indicated that the purpose of the retroreflective tape would be to identify the location of emergency exits to rescuers and increase the on- the-road conspicuity of the bus. Accordingly, the retroreflective tape may have interruptions if they satisfy both of these purposes. The occasional breaks in the tape you described would not appear to negatively affect a rescuer's ability to locate the exits, or reduce the conspicuity of the bus. However, the tape should be applied as near as possible to the exit perimeter... When rivets are present, NHTSA will defer to a manufacturer's decision to apply the retroreflective tape immediately adjacent to the rivets, rather than over the rivets, if the manufacturer decides that this will increase the durability of the tape. According to this July 1993 letter, interruptions in the retroreflective tape to avoid and/or accommodate hinges (such as the hinge on the side of the rear emergency door) and other functional components are permitted if the interruption does not negatively affect a rescuer's ability to locate the exits, or does not reduce the conspicuity of the bus. NHTSA considers tail light lenses to be 'functional components' which do not have to be covered by the retroreflective tape. (Indeed, placement of the tape on the tail light lense could affect the efficacy of the light.) The interruptions in the tape for these components would not appear to negatively affect a rescuer's ability to locate the exits, or reduce the conspicuity of the bus. Thus, the interruptions are permitted for the tape along the sides of your door. With regard to the bottom of your door, based on the pictures provided with your letter, it appears that there is no location available for the placement of retroreflective tape outside of the door's bottom edge. Since not outlining an entire side of an exit might affect a rescuer's ability to locate the exit and would reduce the conspicuity of the exit, the bottom side of the door must be marked with the retroreflective tape. In this situation, NHTSA interprets S5.5.3(c) as allowing placement of the retroreflective tape on the door itself, as near as possible to the lower edge of the door. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam4997

"Dear Mr. Hecker: This responds to your letter of April 2, 199 concerning possible interpretations of section S5.1.4(c) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection, as it applies to the R-BARR Passenger Restraint System (R-BAR). (While your letter refers to section S5.1.2(c), you clarified in a telephone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff that your concerns relate to section S5.1.4(c).) The R-BAR is a padded restraining device, and the ends of the device attach to the rear of a school bus seatback. The device folds down for the purpose of restraining the passengers seated in the next rearward seat. Your letter states that Micho Industries believes that: A. The standard is not applicable to the R-BAR passenger restraint. B. The R-BAR complies with the intent of Standard No. 222. To support these statements you offer the following reasons: 1. The R-BAR is not a fixed position device, nor is it a rigid component of the seat structure. 2. In the event of a rear impact, the R-BAR incorporates a design that allows it to move upward, and away, from the adjoining seat which would thus allow the minimum clearance as intended. 3. The standard in question (571.222, section S5.1.4(c)) was written without the authors having the benefit of knowledge of this type of device and thus allowances were not included for its possible use. The issue of whether Standard No. 222 is applicable to a device such as the R-BAR has been addressed previously by this agency. Enclosed are copies of four letters concerning similar devices (Mr. Joseph F. Mikoll, November 3, 1988, and March 10, 1989, The Honorable Robert J. Lagomarsino, January 8, 1990, and Mr. Scott K. Hiler, January 31, 1991). Those letters make it clear that if a device such as the R-BAR is installed in any new school bus, the school bus manufacturer must certify that the vehicle meets all applicable safety standards with the device installed. The letters also make it clear that such devices may not legally be installed in used school buses by commercial establishments such as repair businesses if the effect of such installation is to take the vehicle out of compliance with any safety standard. With respect to your assertion that the R-BAR complies with the intent of Standard No. 222, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires NHTSA to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that prescribe objective requirements. Under the Act, manufacturers must certify that their products comply with the requirements of all applicable standards and not merely with some alleged 'intent' of a standard. Further, manufacturers may not certify products based on speculation that the agency would have established different requirements had it known of a particular design. With regard to your specific concerns about S5.1.4(c), that section states that when a seat back is subjected to a specified force, '(t)he seat shall not deflect by an amount such that any part of the seat moves to within 4 inches of any part of another passenger seat in its originally installed position.' In the enclosed letter to Mr. Hiler, the agency stated that 'once the restraining bar is attached to the seatback, it is part of the seatback.' Therefore, the R-BAR would be considered a part of the seat subject to the requirements of S5.1.4.(c) Section S5.1.4(c)'s requirements are not limited to rigid components of a seat, and therefore the fact that the R-BAR is not a fixed position device is not relevant to the applicability of those requirements. With respect to your argument that the device will move upward and away in the event of a rear impact, Standard No. 222 sets forth a specific test procedure for the requirement specified in S5.1.4(c). Manufacturers are required to certify that a vehicle complies with the requirements of the standard when tested in accordance with that test procedure. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures";

ID: aiam5309

"Dear Mr. White: This responds to your letter of December 13, 1993 asking several questions concerning a recent amendment to Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (57 FR 49413, November 2, 1992). Your questions and the response to each follows. 1. The effective date - is it the chassis manufacturer's date of completion, the final stage manufacturer's date of completion, or somewhere in between? The effective date for the November 2 final rule is May 2, 1994. Only vehicles manufactured on or after the effective date of an applicable requirement in a Federal motor vehicle safety standard must comply with that requirement. If a vehicle is manufactured in two or more stages, the final stage manufacturer is required to certify that the vehicle complies with 'the standards in effect on the date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle, the date of final completion, or a date between those two dates.' (49 CFR Part 568.6). 2. Based on the formula for emergency exit space, is the area of the front service door to be included? Does this mean on a vehicle of 60 to 77 passengers, the only additional requirements beyond the front and rear doors is a left side exit door? The November 2 final rule requires additional emergency exit area (AEEA) for some buses. The amount, if any, of AEEA which must be provided is determined by subtracting the area of the front service door and either the area of the rear emergency door or the area of the side emergency door and the rear push- out window, depending on the configuration of the bus (S5.2.3.1). These are the minimum exits required on all buses. If AEEA is required, the first additional exit which must be installed is a left side emergency door (for a bus with a rear emergency door) or a right side emergency door (for a bus with a left side emergency door and a rear push-out window). The number of exits may vary for buses which carry the same number of passengers, because the amount of area credited for each exit is the area of daylight opening, and because different variations of types of exits are possible. However, in the regulatory evaluation for the final rule, the agency estimated that a bus would not be required to have a roof exit (the second type of additional exit required) unless the capacity was greater than 62 (for a bus with a rear emergency door) or 77 (for a bus with a left side emergency door and a rear push-out window). 3. The 'clear aisle space' required for exit to the proposed side emergency door, according to federal specifications, can be met with a flip-up type seat or a clear opening of 12', as measured from the back of the door forward. Are there any specifications, definitions, or descriptions provided as to what would be considered a 'flip seat'? The November 2 final rule allowed a flip-up seat to be adjacent to a side emergency exit door 'if the seat bottom pivots and automatically assumes and retains a vertical position when not in use, so that no portion of the seat bottom is within' the required 12 inch aisle to the exit (S5.4.2.1(a)(2)(ii)). The agency did not otherwise define a flip-up seat, nor did it include any performance requirements for these seats. 4. Also, there is concern regarding school buses that are equipped with the 'flip seat' by the emergency door opening and the possibility of school children, either intentionally or accidently, unlatching the door latch mechanism. Are the door latch mechanisms to be equipped to help prevent this from occurring? Standard No. 217 includes requirements for the type of motion and force required to release an emergency exit (S5.3.3). One of these requirements is that the motion to release a door must be upward from inside the bus (upward or pull-type for school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kilograms or less). This is intended to lessen the chance of a door accidently being opened, without unnecessarily making the exit more complicated to open in an emergency. In addition, warning alarms are required for door and window exits to notify the driver that the exit has been opened. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam3171

Dear Mr. Premo: This responds to your November 12, 1979, letter asking whether severa joints in your school bus must comply with Standard No. 221, *School Bus Body Joint Strength*. All of the joints concern what you have called maintenance access panels.; As you are aware, the agency has discovered through its complianc testing that most school bus manufacturers have taken advantage of the maintenance access panel exemption from the standard. The result is that many joints in school buses are not as secure as they should be and, during an accident, might result in injury to children being transported in those buses. The agency is very concerned about this practice and is considering methods of limiting the maintenance access panel exemption.; Your letter asks the agency to consider the fact that the panels whos joints you are questioning are plastic and not metal. Therefore, you conclude that the edges are not sharp, and even if the panels come unfastened in an accident, their edges will not be likely to injure the occupants of your buses.; The standard establishes joint strength tests that apply uniformly t all joints regardless of the material used in the panel. While it may be true that plastic panels are less likely to injure occupants of buses when a panel becomes disconnected during an accident, Standard No. 221 addresses other safety areas beyond preventing the sharp edges of panels from cutting occupants. Joint strength is necessary for the vehicle integrity during accidents. This is as important as preventing cutting edges from panels. Accordingly, the agency will continue to subject all joints falling within the parameters of the standard to the requirements of the standard without regard to the material used in a panel.; With respect to the questions posed in your letter, you first as whether the right and left hand windshield pillar covers must comply with the standard. You indicate that a hose runs behind one pillar cover and a cable control runs behind the other. The agency has indicated that the installation of a wire, hose or cable behind a wall does not make that wall a maintenance access panel. Accordingly, the agency concludes that the joints connecting the pillar cover panel are subject to the standard.; Your questions 2, 4, and 5 refer to panels that cover motors which yo indicate must be serviced. The motors include the windshield wiper and heater motors. The agency is unable to determine from your pictures and sketches whether all of the joints surrounding these motors are subject to the standard. The joints connecting panels that *must* be removed for *routine* servicing of a vehicle's motors would not be considered as joints subject to the standard. However, these joints must be the minimum necessary for routine servicing of the motors. In compliance testing your vehicles, the agency will only exempt those joints that are necessary for routine servicing. We will not exempt adjacent panel joints simply because wires run beneath them.; In your third question you describe a dash trim panel that covers wiring harness, some chassis cowl mounting bolts, and an entrance door cable. The agency needs more information to make a formal determination with respect to this panel and its joints. Our inclination based upon the information that you have presented is that these would be joints subject to the standard, because the removal of this panel is not required for routine maintenance.; Your final question asks whether the entrance door control cover mus comply with the standard. You state only that it must be removed to remove the dash trim panel. As we stated in the last paragraph, we believe that the dash trim panel joints may be required to comply with the standard. If this is the case, it may also be necessary for the door control cover joints to comply with the standard. The key factor in determining whether this panel's joints must comply with the requirement is whether the panel must be removed for routine maintenance. You have not proven such a need in your letter, and therefore, the agency cannot give you a determination concerning the need for these joints to comply with the standard.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5058

"Dear Mr. Adams: This responds to your FAX of September 24, 1992 requesting a ruling regarding the legality of lap belts at the passenger seats on school buses. As explained below, Federal law has long required lap or lap/shoulder belts to be installed at every passenger seating position on small school buses. Federal law has also long permitted, but not required, lap or lap/shoulder belts to be installed at passenger seating positions on large school buses, provided that those belts do not adversely affect the large school bus's compliance with the applicable safety standards. This is still the agency's position. As you know, in 1977, NHTSA issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, which established minimum levels of crash protection that must be provided for occupants of all school buses. For large school buses (those with a gross vehicle weight rating GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds), the standard requires occupant protection through a concept called 'compartmentalization' -- strong, well-padded, well- anchored, high-backed, evenly spaced seats. Small school buses (those with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less) must provide 'compartmentalization' and be equipped with lap or lap/shoulder belts at all passenger seating positions. The agency believes that safety belts are necessary in addition to 'compartmentalization' in small school buses because of their smaller size and weight, which are closer to that of passenger cars and light trucks. Ever since 1977, NHTSA has indicated that Federal law permits lap or lap/shoulder belts to be installed at the passenger seating positions on large school buses as long as the vehicle would still comply with all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 222. NHTSA has no information to indicate that installation of seat belts at the passenger seating positions on a large school bus would affect the bus's compliance with any safety standard.The allegations in your FAX that using seat belts in large school buses will result in crash forces producing concentrated loading on the head, instead of being spread evenly over the upper torso as is the case without a seat belt, are nearly identical with the explanations included in a 1985 Transport Canada report on school bus safety. NHTSA carefully evaluated and considered the Canadian report and these explanations in connection with its rulemaking action considering whether to specify requirements for voluntarily installed seat belts on large school buses. 54 FR 11765, March 22, 1989. After fully considering the Canadian report, the agency stated at 54 FR 11770: NHTSA shares commenters' concerns about any implications that safety belts negatively affect the protection provided to passengers on large school buses. However, the agency is not aware of accident data showing an injury caused or made more serious by the presence of safety belts on a school bus. Furthermore, NHTSA cannot conclude from the Canadian report's findings that belts actually degrade the benefits of compartmentalization to the extent that the supplemental restraint system renders inoperative the safety of large school buses, but the possibility exists that the occupant kinematics shown in the Canadian tests could occur. The agency then identified some possible safety benefits that could result from seat belts in large school buses, benefits that were not considered in the Canadian tests. The agency concluded that, 'Although these benefits are not significant enough to justify a Federal requirement for the installation of safety belts on all large school buses, they are enough to provide a basis upon which the agency will decline to prohibit the installation of belts on large school buses.' 54 FR 11765, at 11770, March 22, 1989. I have enclosed a copy of this notice for your information. As you can see, NHTSA has carefully considered the subject raised in your FAX and reviewed all available information in this area. After that review, the agency concluded that there was no justification for changing its longstanding position that persons that wish to do so should be permitted to install seat belts at passenger seating positions in large school buses. Your letter did not provide any data that NHTSA had not already considered. Hence, there is no basis for the agency to change its longstanding position in this area. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: aiam1083

Dear Mr. Jones: This is in reply to your letter of February 26, 1973, requesting ou view of your booklet on Standard No. 117. We have the following comments.; On page 2, under the heading, 'Does a Retread Have to Pass All Thes Tests', you refer to a lack of availability of test wheels. On page 3, under the heading, 'How Expensive Could Testing Get?', you quote figures of $250.00 to $400.00. As you know, the standard no longer includes the high speed and endurance Tests, and while there are other laboratory test involved in testing strength and bead unseating, neither includes the use of the laboratory test wheel. Consequently, insofar as your statements may take into account laboratory wheel tests, they should be modified.; On page 3, under the heading, 'What if One Certified Doesn't Comply?' you state, 'If the tire was not produced with due care then you will have both a recall and the probability of a penalty being assessed.' Notification of defects to first purchasers, however, is not contingent upon a showing of due care, and must be made even if a manufacturer used due care. Whether a manufacturer exercises due care is relevant only to whether he is in violation of the ACT, and to civil penalties, but not to defect notification (recall). The reason is that a retreader's exercise of due care doesn't change the fact that potentially unsafe tires will be used unless their owners are notified.; On page 4, under the Heading, 'Must You Submit Information On Defect and Failures?': Under section 113(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (as amended in 1970), each retreader must furnish NHTSA with a true and representative copy of all notices, bulletins, or other communications sent either to dealers or purchasers with regard to any defect in his tires. This requirements applies to all defects, and you should review it. It is incorrect to say that retreaders are not required to submit information regarding defects to NHTSA.; On page 4, under 'What Casing Controls are Required?', you indicat that no tire may be retreaded which has exposed ply cord. However, the standard allows ply cord to be exposed at a splice (S5.2.1(b)). While you make this point later, on page 5, the way in which you do so seems more to contradict than clarify your earlier statement. We suggest you indicate that ply cord may be exposed at a splice in the earlier paragraph as well. The same thing can be said for the next section on page 4, 'May Tires With Exposed Ply Cord be Retreaded?' This section is also completely silent on the exception for ply cord at a splice, and should also be modified.; On page 4, under the heading, 'What are Restrictions on Good Casings?' you omit certain requirements. Casings without a symbol DOT that are to be retreaded must only be of those size designations specified in the table at the end of the standard. These casings must also have permanently labeled on them the size, and number of plies or ply rating. Both of these information items and the symbol 'DOT' must also be permanently labeled on each DOT casing that is to be retreaded.; On page 5, under the heading, 'Should We Use Affixed Labels o Permanent Molding On Tire?', the minimum size for permanent labeling under S6.3.2 has been changed to 0.0078 inches. This change does not, however, affect affixed labels.; On page 6, under the heading, 'Is Any Provision Made For Sizin Difference in Retreads?', you state a retread may be 10% over new tire physical and dimension requirements. The 10% allowance for section width is to be calculated on the section width specified in the Tables of Standard No. 109, for the tire size designation. New tires are allowed to exceed this figure by 7%. Consequently, retreads can exceed the new tire requirements by only 3% (10% of the table figure). To say they can exceed the new tire requirement by 10% may mislead some persons into thinking they can exceed the value in the table by 17% which, of course, is not correct.; Apart from these points, your booklet appears to us to be essentiall correct. It should prove helpful to retreaders.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0641

Dear Mr. Milby: This is in response to your letter of February 7, 1972, in which yo discussed some problems that you have encountered with the regulation on vehicles manufactured in two or more stages (49 CFR Part 568), as applied to the school buses of which you are the final-stage manufacturer. Since the receipt of your letter, Mr. Rumph of your company and Mr. Sweet of the Truck Body and Equipment Association met with Mr. Dyson of this office to discuss the issues raised in your letter. Also, on March 8 you sent a sample letter that you proposed to send to your customers.; As we understand the problem from your letter and the subsequen discussion, it is essentially that you are receiving chassis-cowls from school bus buyers, for mounting of your bodies as a final-stage manufacturer, which are inadequate for the purpose according to the gross vehicle and gross axle weight ratings now included with the incomplete vehicles under our multistage vehicle regulations, 49 CFR Part 568. The problem as you describe it appears to have arisen in the negotiation between the school bus buyers and the dealers from whom they bought the incomplete vehicles, in that the dealers sold chassis that were too lightly equipped with tires and axles for the loaded weight implicit in the buyer's specification, under both our certification regulations and accepted industry practice. You state that your company bears the immediate burden of the problem, because you have invested in the production of several dozen bodies whose installation is held up pending resolution of the problem.; From your discussion we assume that all parties are agreed that th bodies that the customers ordered (and you have built) are the ones that are to be used, and that the chassis that have been furnished to you can be economically modified to meet the requirements of our regulations and be safe for their intended use.; With these assumptions, we suggest the following course of action o your part:; 1. Complete each vehicle as planned. 2. Affix a certification label to each vehicle as you normally do stating on the label weight rating figures that will satisfy our regulations (Part 567) and the axle capacity requirements of the vehicle.; 3. Deliver the vehicle, but concurrently send a written statement b certified mail to the vehicle buyer to the effect that the vehicle *must be modified* in order to conform to the GVWR and GAWR figures on the certification label, both for purposes of safety and to conform to Federal regulations. The letter should advise the buyer to take the vehicle to a dealer of the chassis manufacturer for these modifications immediately upon receiving it. The sample letter you sent on March 8 will be satisfactory if you modify the second and third paragraphs to read as follows:; >>>'Federal Regulations 49 CFR Part 567, *Certification*, requires Blu Bird to certify the front and rear gross axle weight rating (GAWR) and the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of completed vehicles, and specifies a minimum GVWR based on seating capacity.; 'Your vehicle may be shipped as it is, however, the values of GAWR an GVWR shown on the certification plate will be contingent on the chassis modifications indicated above. These changes *must*, in the interest of safety, be made before the vehicle is placed into service, and you should take the vehicle to your chassis dealer as soon as you receive it.'<<<; 4. Send copies of each such statement to (a) Office of Standard Enforcement, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C. 20590, (b) the manufacturer of the chassis that was delivered to you, and (c) the dealer from whom the buyer ordered the chassis, if any and where known to you.; This procedure is allowed only as to chassis that have already bee received by Blue Bird as of the receipt of this letter, and it should not be viewed as precedent for future action by any other persons. In the future, Blue Bird as the final-stage manufacturer must take responsibility for the vehicle as completed by it, to the extent of its knowledge of relevant facts.; We are pleased to be of assistance. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4803

"Dear Mr. Pugh: This responds to your letter seeking an interpretatio of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). More specifically, you asked about the requirements for safety belts at the various seating positions in vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating under 10,000 pounds that you called 'van conversions.' You first asked whether a 'van conversion' would be classified as a passenger car, truck, or multipurpose passenger vehicle. Vehicles commonly called 'vans' may be classed in four different vehicle categories (set forth at 49 CFR 571.3) for the purposes of our safety standards, depending on the configuration of the particular 'van.' Most cargo vans are classified as 'trucks' under our safety standards, because those vehicles are 'designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment.' Most passenger vans are classified as 'multipurpose passenger vehicles,' because they do not meet the definition of a 'truck', but are 'constructed on a truck chassis.' Those vans that have eleven or more designated seating positions are classified as 'buses,' because they are 'designed for carrying more than 10 persons. Finally, one minivan (the Nissan Axxess) was certified by its manufacturer as a 'passenger car,' because it was 'designed for carrying 10 persons or less.' Additionally, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility for classifying a particular vehicle in the first instance on the vehicle's manufacturer. For this reason, NHTSA does not approve or endorse any vehicle classification before the manufacturer itself has classified a particular vehicle. NHTSA may reexamine the manufacturer's classification in the course of any enforcement actions. If you are interested in the appropriate classification for a particular van conversion, we will offer our tentative opinion if you will provide us with detailed information on the van conversion in which you are interested. You next asked on what date safety belts were required in 'van conversions,' what type of safety belts, and at what locations those belts were required. As explained above, we do not class vehicles as 'van conversions' for the purposes of our safety standards. If the vans were classed as passenger cars, passenger cars manufactured on or after January 1, 1968 were required to have lap/shoulder safety belts at the front outboard seating positions and either lap/shoulder or lap-only safety belts at every other seating position in the car. Beginning December 11, 1989, passenger cars were required to have lap/shoulder safety belts at both front and rear outboard seating positions, with either lap/shoulder or lap-only safety belts at every other seating position. Since September l, l989, all passenger cars are required to be equipped with automatic crash protection for outboard front-seat occupants. Multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less manufactured on or after July 1, 1971 were required to have lap/shoulder safety belts at the front outboard seating positions and either lap/shoulder or lap-only safety belts at every other seating position in the vehicle. Beginning September 1, 1991, vans classified as multipurpose passenger vehicles or trucks (other than motor homes) must have lap/shoulder belts at both front and rear outboard seating positions, with either lap or lap/shoulder belts at all other seating positions. Motor homes manufactured on or after September 1, 1991 will continue to be required to have lap/shoulder belts at front outboard seating positions and either lap/shoulder or lap-only safety belts at every other seating position. In addition, effective September l, l99l vans must meet dynamic crash test injury criteria for the front outboard seating positions. If the vans were classed as buses, buses manufactured on or after July 1, 1971 were required to be equipped with either a lap/shoulder or a lap-only safety belt at the driver's seating position. Beginning September 1, 1991, buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less (except school buses) must be equipped with lap/shoulder belts at all front and rear outboard seating positions and either lap/shoulder or lap-only safety belts at every other seating position. Also, the agency has proposed extending the automatic crash protection requirements mentioned above to these other vehicle classifications. I hope this information is useful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on this subject, please contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: 7638

Mr. R.J. Misorski
Director, Maintenance & Repair
Maersk Inc.
231 Tyler Street
Port Newark, NJ 07114

Dear Mr. Misorski:

This responds to your letter of August 6, 1992, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You write with reference to an amendment that became effective December 1, 1991, requiring a minimum of 12 square inches of lens area for rear stop or turn signals on vehicles over 80 inches wide, regardless of the separation between lamps. You request confirmation of your feeling that "equipment manufactured prior to December 1, 1991 would be exempt from this ruling", and that "it only applies to equipment that is manufactured after December 1, 1991." You have asked for this interpretation to "ensure compliance with our equipment fleet."

What the amendments require is that multipurpose passenger vehicles, buses, trucks, and trailers whose overall width is 80 inches or more, which are manufactured on and after December 1, 1991, be equipped with stop and turn signal lamps that meet the new requirements. Stop and turn signal lamps which were manufactured prior to that date that do not meet the new requirements are permissible to replace original equipment of the same type on vehicles manufactured before December 1, 1991, but they cannot be used as either original or replacement stop and turn signal lamps on vehicles manufactured on and after December 1, 1991. Furthermore, Standard No. 108 continues to allow manufacture and sale on and after December 1, 1991, of the old type of stop and turn signal lamps for replacement of original equipment on vehicles manufactured prior to December 1, 1991.

I hope that this assists you with your compliance question. We shall be pleased to answer any further questions you may have.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:8/21/92

ID: 77-3.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/13/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Brock Adams; NHTSA

TO: Hon. R. J. Lagomarsino - H.O.R.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 16, 1977, letter enclosing correspondence from Mr. (Illegible Word) Smith concerning the safety of radial tires.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), an agency of the Department of Transportation, promulgates safety standards requiring that tires meet minimum levels of strength and endurance. Should a tire not meet the performance levels prescribed in the tire standards, its manufacturer would be in violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Pub. (Illegible Word) 89-563) and subject to the penalties specified thereunder.

The NHTSA has not concluded that radial tires produced in the United States are less safe than those produced elsewhere. All tires, sold in the United States, both domestically and foreign-manufactured, must comply with (Illegible Word) safety standards.

The problem to which your constituent refers, the so-called "phoney steel belted radial," concerns steel belted radial ply tires that use only a single steel belt in their construction. As cited above, our standards specify performance and not design requirements. Thus, tire manufacturers may use whatever materials they choose in constructing tires that meet the prescribed performance level. Within our standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires - Passenger Cars, we require the tire manufacturer to identify the generic name of the material used in the ply cords, and we require that the actual number of plies in the tread area be specified. Therefore, when a consumer purchases a new passenger car tire, he can identify whether the steel belted radial ply tire has one or two steel belts.

Since your constituent describes a situation of misleading advertising, I believe his letter should also be reviewed by the Federal Trade Commission. I suggest that you contact that agency for an opinion on the issue.