ID: 2970yy

Mr. Rueben K. Brown
Product Engineer
Crane Carrier Company
P.O. Box 582891
1925 North Sheridan
Tulsa, OK 74158

Dear Mr. Brown:

This responds to your letter of March 12, 1991 requesting an interpretation of the applicability of the spike stop requirement in Standard No. 105 to school buses with GVWR greater than 10,000 lbs. While school buses are required by S5.1 to be capable of meeting the requirements of S5.1.1 through S5.1.6, the spike stop requirement in S5.1.6 is only applicable to vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs. or less. Therefore, school buses with a GVWR greater than 10,000 lbs are not required to be capable of meeting the spike stop requirement.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref: 105 d:3/29/9l

ID: 2971yy

Gary P. Toth, Esq.
General Motors Corporation Legal Staff
New Center One Building
3031 West Grand Blvd.
P.O. Box 33122
Detroit, MI 48232

Dear Mr. Toth:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of how the requirements of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR 571.209) would affect some dual-spring retractor designs GM is considering. Your letter said that these dual-spring retractors are designed so that a spring with a lower retraction force is or can be engaged when the safety belt is being worn by an occupant. When the safety belt is removed, a spring with a higher retraction force is engaged to effectively stow the belt webbing. Your letter also said that the retractor for the shoulder belt portion of the lap/shoulder belts on which these designs would be used is an emergency locking retractor (ELR).

The minimum and maximum retractor force requirements for ELRs are set forth in S4.3(j)(5) and (6) of Standard No. 209. Those sections specify minimum and maximum retractor force requirements when the retractors "are tested in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph S5.2(j)." S5.2(j) specifies that, for the purposes of measuring the retractor forces, the webbing shall be fully extended from the retractor and then retracting the webbing to 75 percent extension plus or minus 2 inches.

Your letter stated that your dual-spring retractor designs will comply with the minimum retractor force requirements when tested under the conditions specified in S5.2(j). This is because the higher retraction force will always be engaged under those conditions. It appears that, when the higher retraction force is engaged in these dual-spring retractor designs, the retractors will comply with the minimum retractor force requirements. However, when the lower retraction force is engaged, the retractor force is less than the minimum retractor force requirement. Because these dual-spring retractors comply with the retractor force requirements when tested under the conditions specified in S5.2(j) of Standard No. 209, your company is ready to certify these designs as complying with Standard No. 209.

You are, however, concerned with the implications of a February 16, 1984 NHTSA interpretation addressed to Mr. Frank Pepe. In that instance, Mr. Pepe stated that the ELR had two tension modes that were activated by the vehicle door. The subject retractor operated in a high tension mode when the vehicle door was open, and in a lower tension mode when the vehicle door was closed. The agency concluded that, because Standard No. 209 does not distinguish between tension modes, the subject retractors would have to comply with all the requirements of the standard, including the minimum and maximum retraction force requirements, in both tension modes. Your letter asked us to reevaluate the conclusions reached in our February 16, 1984 letter to Mr. Pepe.

We believe that the facts presented in your letter are significantly different than those that were presented in the Pepe letter, so the conclusions reached in the Pepe letter are not the same we would reach for your company's dual-spring retractors. In the case of the Pepe letter, the starting point for our analysis of whether the retractors would comply with the minimum and maximum retractor force requirements was the language of S4.3(j) in Standard No. 209, which directed us to the test conditions set forth in S5.2(j) of Standard No. 209. However, the test conditions in S5.2(j) [complete extension of the webbing, followed by subsequent retraction to 75 percent extension] did not adjust the Pepe retractors to either the high or low tension mode. Some additional action beyond the conditions specified in S5.2(j) had to be taken to select either the high or low tension mode. Since the selection of the high or low tension mode was not specified in S5.2(j) or elsewhere in Standard No. 209, NHTSA concluded that the retractor would have to be certified as complying with the retractor force requirements when adjusted to either the high or low tension mode.

The GM retractors present a significantly different situation. According to your letter, the conditions set forth in S5.2(j) will adjust the GM retractors in a way so that the higher retraction force will always be engaged. Assuming this to be the case, no adjustments beyond the conditions specified in S5.2(j) would be necessary to select a tension mode for the retractors. In these circumstances, compliance with the minimum retractor force requirements would be determined only under the conditions specified in S5.2(j).

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:209 d:4/9/9l

ID: 2972yy

Mr. David A. White
Manager, Reliability
Grumman Olson
P.O. Box 2005
Sturgis, MI 49091

Dear Mr. White:

This responds to your "notification of noncompliance" with 49 CFR Part 567 dated March 12, l99l, and addressed to the Associate Administrator for Enforcement. Grumman has omitted to provide a VIN on the vehicle certification label, as required by section 567.4(g)(6). You have petitioned "to have the noncompliance deemed inconsequential", and are "seeking relief from the notification and repair requirements based on that possibility."

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires notification and remedy for noncompliances with Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and for defects that relate to motor vehicle safety. The requirement that Grumman fails to meet is not contained in Safety Standard No. 115 Vehicle Identification Number, but in a regulation that is not part of the Safety Standards (Part 571). Thus, a noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard has not occurred. Furthermore, failure to provide information on the certification label in accordance with Part 567 is not a "defect". The Act defines a defect as a "defect in performance, construction, components or materials." Clearly this does not exist.

In sum, there is no legal obligation upon Grumman Olson to notify and remedy under these circumstances, and the company is free to take whatever action it deems desirable in this case. Failure to comply with Part 567 is a violation of the Safety Act for which a civil penalty may be imposed, but the agency does not intend to seek a penalty in this matter. Nonetheless, we encourage Grumman Olson to take steps necessary to ensure that further violations do not occur.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:556 d:4/25/9l

ID: 2973yy

Mr. Paul R. Kirchgraber
Souvenirs of the Future
Suite 201-71
3435 Ocean Park Blvd.
Santa Monica, CA 90405

Dear Mr. Kirchgraber:

This is in reply to your letter of April 16, 1991, with respect to which Federal motor vehicle safety standards, if any, must be met in order to sell an exterior tire/wheel cover with reflective characteristics that will help to make "the vehicle more visible to the surrounding traffic." In addition, you "want to be certain that the reflective nature of the fabric used in this cover does not present a safety hazard", and ask for the citation to "appropriate federal test standards from the code of federal regulations for similar automotive accessories."

There are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that establish performance requirements for reflective material of this nature, or for wheel coverings on exterior-mounted tires. The standard on vehicle lighting, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08, does prohibit, as original equipment, the installation of a "reflective device or other motor vehicle equipment" that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. It is theoretically possible that your material could create glare in the eyes of a following operator so that (s)he would fail to respond to a stop signal, or a turn signal. The samples submitted with your letter are too small for us to judge its reflectivity, and we suggest that you conduct your own tests, approaching a vehicle with the tire cover from the rear, with headlamps on the lower beam. This, to us, is preferable to your redesigning the material to conform to any federal test standard relating to reflectivity.

Although the color of lighting equipment on the rear is generally red, with amber permitted for turn signals, and white required for back up lamps, we do not believe that the use of additional colors would create any confusion. In short, we believe that the wheel cover will be perceived for the wheel cover it is.

I hope that this responds to your concerns.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:5/6/9l

ID: 2974yy

Mr. Chris Lawrence
Chang & Lawrence
P.O. Box 105-55
Taipei
Taiwan R.O.C.

Dear Mr. Lawrence:

This responds to your letter of April 10, 1991, asking for an amplification of my letter of March 21, with reference to the mounting of an electric sign board in the rear window area, or on the rear, of a passenger car. You have asked whether we would "object to mounting the board in a side window."

Although the only required lighting equipment mounted on the side of vehicles are side marker lamps and reflectors, the most likely place a vehicle will be seen only from the side is when it is crossing an intersection, at a 90-degree angle to the observer. At other times, in the flow of traffic, the side of the vehicle will be viewed obliquely, whether the driver of another vehicle is approaching it from the front or from the rear. Thus, a side mounted electronic sign board may have an even greater potential for impairing the effectiveness of the required front and rear lighting equipment by its potential to distract other drivers from the signals sent by the front and rear lamps when they and the sign board are operated simultaneously. As I explained on March 21, this might also create a partial inoperability of lighting equipment within the meaning of the prohibition discussed in the letter of August 17, l989, that I enclosed. Whether there is an impairment is determined in the first instance by the manufacturer of the vehicle, if it is the installer, or by the dealer, if it performed such work. If a negative determination appears clearly erroneous, NHTSA will inform the manufacturer or dealer responsible for the determination.

You have also asked as to other regulatory bodies that need to be consulted before product marketing for a side mounted sign board can begin. This question appears based on the premise that there would be no Federal objection to the side mounted sign. If you choose to sell this device, its use will be subject to the laws of the States in which it is employed. We are unable to advise you on State laws. The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators may be able to assist you. The address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:l08#VSA d:5/l0/9l

ID: 2975yy

Mr. Danny J. Pugh
Engineering Manager
Special Service Vehicles
Utilimaster Corporation
65266 State Road 19
P.O. Box 585
Wakarusa, Indiana 46573

Dear Mr. Pugh:

This responds to your letter of April 16, 1991 regarding auxiliary seating in walk-in van-type vehicles. You asked if jump seats are required to meet Standards No. 207, 208, and 210. You also asked if these seats "need Type II seat belts in the passenger outboard seating position and in side facing seats."

Standards No. 207, 208, and 210 include requirements for "designated seating positions" in vehicles. The term "designated seating position" is defined in 49 CFR 571.3(b) as:

any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as 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 the auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats....(Emphasis added.)

Because an auxiliary seat is not a designated seating position, it is not required to meet Standards No. 207, 208, and 210. In addition, auxiliary seating is not required to have Type II seat belts in the passenger outboard seating position and in side-facing seats. It is the manufacturer's responsibility to determine if a specific seat qualifies as auxiliary seating. However, the agency will issue an opinion if a manufacturer submits specific information describing the seat.

While auxiliary seating is not subject to all safety standards, we encourage you to ensure that the seats provide safe performance when in use. In particular, we would encourage you to provide safety belts for these seats to ensure that their occupants will have adequate crash protection. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:571#207#208#210 d:5/l0/9l

ID: 2976yy

Ms. Vicki Haudler
4636 S. Cedar Lake Rd.
St. Louis Park, MN 55416

Dear Ms. Haudler:

This responds to your letter seeking further information about a possible determination to be made by the Secretary of Transportation under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208). S4.1.4.1 of Standard No. 208 provides that cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989 must be equipped with automatic crash protection. Vehicles equipped with automatic crash protection protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the minimum performance requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, when tested by this agency in a 30 mph barrier crash test. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used).

As you noted in your letter, S4.1.5 of Standard No. 208 provides that: "If the Secretary of Transportation determines, by not later than April 1, 1989, that state mandatory safety belt usage laws have been enacted that meet the criteria specified in S4.1.5.2 and that are applicable to not less than two-thirds of the total population . . ., [the automatic restraint requirements will not go into effect]." You asked whether the Secretary ever made a determination under S4.1.5 regarding State safety belt use laws. The answer is no.

Under S4.1.5, the Secretary was not required to make any determination about any State safety belt laws. In fact, the Secretary never did so. Because no determination was made under S4.1.5, the automatic restraint requirements went into effect as of September 1, 1989 for all passenger cars.

I have returned the self-addressed, stamped envelope you enclosed in your letter. Good luck in your legal career.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:208 d:5/l0/9l

ID: 2983yy

Mr. Takeo Wakamatsu
Executive Vice President and
General Manager
Mitsubishi Motors America, Inc.
Bridgeport Office
100 Center Square Road
P.O. Box 464
Bridgeport, NJ 08014

Dear Mr. Wakamatsu:

This responds to your March 28, 1991, letter to Mr. Scott Shadle of this agency's Rulemaking office, on behalf of Mitsubishi Motors Corporation (MMC) in Japan. MMC requests approval of its plan for "derating" the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of certain imported trucks for the purpose of marketing strategy. Based on the context of the letter, I presume that you mean that MMC would like to lower the GVWR of the vehicles. The following responds to this request.

NHTSA is not authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). Each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

The GVWR assigned to a vehicle by its manufacturer affects the vehicle's loading and other test conditions to which the vehicle will be subjected during NHTSA's compliance testing for the vehicle. Generally, NHTSA expects the GVWR to reflect a manufacturer's good-faith evaluation of the vehicle's size, weight, and load carrying capacity. The only regulatory limitation on the GVWR that manufacturers may assign to their vehicles is set forth in 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. Section 567.4(g)(3) provides that the assigned GVWR "shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity."

There is no regulatory prohibition against a manufacturer lowering the GVWR assigned to its vehicles. Of course, the lower GVWR would have to be not less than the minimum GVWR specified in 567.4(g)(3). Further, the certification label on the vehicle would have to show the lowered GVWR as the GVWR assigned to the vehicle. In addition, the manufacturer must reexamine its certification of compliance for the vehicle to ensure that the vehicle continues to comply with all safety standards at this new lower GVWR, and that the vehicle continues to comply with all other NHTSA regulations (such as 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number-Content Requirements) at the lower GVWR. Assuming these conditions would be satisfied, MMC would be permitted to lower the GVWR assigned to these vehicles.

I hope that this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact us if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:567 d:4/29/9l

ID: 2984yy

Eric G. Hoffman, Esq.
Russell & Hoffman, Inc.
2000 NCNB Plaza
300 Convent Street
San Antonio, Texas 78205-3793

Dear Mr. Hoffman:

This responds to your letter of March 26, 1991, addressed to Mr. Harry Thompson, asking about a private school's use of "mini-vans which are designed to carry more than 10 passengers." Your letter was referred to our office for reply. You stated that the school has become aware of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) and is concerned whether the operation of the vans is in compliance with applicable regulations under the Act. You asked a number of questions related to that concern.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to clarify the operation of Federal law as it applies to school buses. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) defines "school bus" as a motor vehicle designed for carrying 11 or more persons, including a driver, and sold for transporting students to and from school or school-related events. Therefore, the vehicles refered to in your letter would be considered school buses under federal law.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all new school buses. These standards impose obligations on the manufacturers and sellers of new motor vehicles, not upon the subsequent users of these vehicles. It is a violation of Federal law for any person to sell as a school bus any new vehicle that does not comply with all school bus safety standards. If your client believes that they have been sold noncomplying vehicles, and that the dealer knew of their intended use, the school should contact NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, at the address given above, and inform them of the apparent violation of Federal law.

Without violating any provision of Federal law, a school may use a vehicle to transport school children, even if the vehicle does not comply with Federal school bus regulations. This is so because the individual States have authority over the activities of a user of a school bus. Since the various questions you ask assume that the Safety Act regulates users of school buses, we are unable to provide specific answers to those questions. To determine whether the private school your firm represents may use noncomplying vans, you must look to state law.

I must emphasize NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students. I encourage the school your firm represents to give its most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting students in vehicles that do not comply with these regulations.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:571.3 "school bus" d:4/29/9l

ID: 2985yy

Mr. Dan P. Strauser
Manager - Research and Development
Elgin Sweeper Company
1300 W. Bartlett Road
P.O. Box 537
Elgin, IL 60121-0537

Dear Mr. Strauser:

This responds to your letter of March 25, 1991 regarding the applicability of this agency's safety standards to a number of models of Elgin and Ravo street sweepers.

In general, all vehicles classified as "motor vehicles" are subject to safety standards. Section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) defines the term "motor vehicle" as follows:

"Motor vehicle" means any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

Under a longstanding policy, this agency has regarded vehicles not to be "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the Act and therefore not subject to safety standards, despite their use on the highways, if they (1) have an unusual body configuration which sets the vehicles apart from typical highway traffic and (2) have a maximum speed capability of 20 mph or less.

Based upon the literature you provided, the Pelican "SE" and Pelican "P" 3-wheel street sweepers appear to meet these criteria. If the advertised speed ("Up to 20 mph") is the maximum speed these vehicles are capable of, these vehicles would not be considered "motor vehicles" and therefore would not be required to comply with the safety standards. Since the advertised speed of the Whirlwind, Crosswind, and Eagle 4-wheel street sweepers, and the Ravo Model 5000 street sweeper exceeds 20 mph (or the description, i.e., "legal highway speeds", suggests that the vehicle is capable of exceeding 20 mph), these vehicles would be considered "motor vehicles." The information you enclosed on the Ravo Model 4000 street sweeper did not indicate its maximum speed capability. If this vehicle is capable of speeds in excess of 20 mph, it would also be considered a "motor vehicle." Street sweepers which are considered to be "motor vehicles" would be classified as "trucks" and required to comply with all safety standards applicable to trucks. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards are contained in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 571. You may find a copy of 49 CFR Part 571 at a Federal Depository Library in your State. If you so choose, you may purchase a copy of the volume of Title 49 which includes Part 571 from the United States Printing Office (GPO), Washington, D.C., 20402, (202) 783-3238.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /ref:VSA d:5/8/9l