ID: nht79-3.41

DATE: 08/07/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joan Claybrook; NHTSA

TO: Chrysler Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter about Chrysler's general need for relief from Federal regulations and the denial of its petition for a one-year exemption from the automatic restraint requirements for Chrysler 1982-model full-size cars. There are several statements by Chrysler regarding the petition denial that you wish placed in the public record. Accordingly, your letter has been placed in the public docket on occupant crash protection (74-14; General Reference).

This agency is fully appreciative of the significance of Chrysler's circumstances and needs. Where relief can be considered consistent with the spirit and provisions of the laws we administer, we will do so. This willingness was amply demonstrated by my recent action in reducing the 1981 fuel economy standard for light trucks. Chrysler's automatic restraint petition presented us with a substantially different situation. Under our statutory authority, the only way we could have exempted Chrysler's large-size 1982 model from compliance with the automatic restraint requirements would have been to classify that vehicle as a unique type of car under our exisiting authority. Clearly, such a classification would have been challenged in court, and we believe it would not have been sustained. Indeed, such an action would severely strain our credibility with the court which just recently reviewed that very issued.

Regarding your statements about the safety issues associated with the denial, the agency agrees that some safety belt reminder systems can be effective in encouraging belt use. We do not believe, however, that most simple warning systems can equal the life-saving potential of automatic restraints. Further, the NHTSA has no authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to require ignition interlock systems, which are probably the most effective systems for encouraging use of manual belts.

In this particular matter, the law precludes us from granting the relief you seek. I regret that we are unable to assist you under these circumstances.

SINCERELY,

July 12, 1979

The Honorable Joan Claybrook Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Ms. Claybrook:

We have reviewed the NHTSA denial of our petition for a one-year exemption from MVSS 208 for Chrysler 1982 model year full-size cars. We are revising our product and capital plans accordingly; nonetheless, we are convinced that the reasons set forth by NHTSA in its denial of our petition are in error. There are three basic arguments in the statement of denial: that there will be a significant reduction in safety if these cars do not have passive restraints, that Chrysler can produce cars with passive restraints at a competitive price, and that the economic risks to Chrysler would be "slight." We cannot agree with these conclusions and believe that the public record should include the following comments:

Safety

The NHTSA estimates that an average of fifteen lives per year would be lost if 1982 Chrysler full-size cars were not equipped with passive restraints. Although the calculations were not made public, presumably they are based in part on the historical NHTSA overestimation of passive restraint benefits. In addition, Chrysler and NHTSA staff had discussed informally improved safety belt reminder systems for the cars in question. NHTSA researchers have found that improved reminders increase belt use sharply, and cars so equipped could equal or exceed the performance of passive restraint cars at a small fraction of the cost. The NHTSA did not even mention this approach in its denial.

Consumer Cost of Passive Restraints

The NHTSA contends that Chrysler can build full-size cars with passive restraints in 1982 at a cost comparable to its competitors. It cannot. A major part of the price of any car or component is amortization of capital expenses necessary to bring it to production. The basic reason for our petition was the short life and low volume of cars over which we could amortize costs. Our competitors can spread costs over more years of production, and over more cars per year. Without question our costs per vehicle would be much higher than the corresponding ones from Ford and General Motors.

A corollary NHTSA argument is that a passive restraint exemption would give Chrysler a competitive advantage. It is widely understood that Chrysler already is at a serious competitive disadvantage because the costs of compliance with federal regulations are much higher, per unit, than for Ford and General Motors, and that this disadvantage will continue into the foreseeable future. The passive restraint exemption would do no more than reduce this price disadvantage -- a little.

Capital Expenses

The costs of meeting a multiplicity of federal regulations is causing an enormous financial strain on Chrysler Corporation. This is not only our contention, but also the conclusion of every researcher who has examined the automobile industry recently. All studies found that because of federal regulation Chrysler will suffer in comparison to Ford and General Motors. All of these studies are known to NHTSA and some were done specifically for the agency. In saying that the cost to provide passive restraints for one year "can be borne by Chrysler without significant difficulty," the agency simply ignores facts. Chrysler is already at its limit and can bear not additional capital costs without extreme difficulty.

We did not expect our petition to be denied. Over the past several months federal officials have gained increased understanding of the crushing burden federal regulations have placed on Chrysler Corporation, and the competitive disadvantages they have created. These officials have recognized that some measure of relief is necessary for Chrysler and have pledged that future government action would not damage the corporation further. This NHTSA denial is the first important decision since the need for revised government policy became apparent; instead of providing the expected relief, it makes an already difficult financial picture even worse.

JOHN J. RICCARDO -- CHAIRMAN

ID: nht79-3.42

DATE: 12/31/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: American Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter requesting an interpretation of the warning system requirements for seat belts in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208. The buckles of driver lap belts in all AMC vehicles and most Jeep vehicles are equipped with switches that prevent the audible belt use warning system from operating when the driver turns the ignition on after having fastened his or her lap belt. You ask whether the standard allows removal of the switch and associated wiring. The effect of this step, which would result in a savings of about $ 1.50 per vehicle, would be that the warning would operate regardless of whether the driver has fastened his or her lap belt. You also ask that your letter be considered a petition for rulemaking if this removal is not permissible.

Paragraph S7.3 of the standard requires a seat belt warning system that activates a 4 to 8-second warning light when the vehicle's ignition switch is moved to the "on" or "start" position (condition "a"), and a 4 to 8-second audible signal when condition "a" exists and the driver's lap belt is not fastened (condition "b"). Under your proposal, the audible signal would be activated when both conditions exist. However, it would also be activated when condition "a" alone exists.

The functioning of the audible signal when condition "a" only exists is not permissible under the standard. The rulemaking notices which led to adoption of the current requirement stated that the agency's intent was that the audible signal operate if the driver's lap belt is not in use. The agency expressed that same intent in the standard by specifying the light was to function when condition "a" existed and the audible signal when both conditions "a" and "b" existed. To interpret the standard to permit the signal to operate when condition "a" only existed would be to render purposeless the specification of condition "b".

Further, the agency denies your petition to amend FMVSS 208 to permit operation of the audible signal when condition "a" only exists. A greater limitation was placed on the operation of the audible warning signal in consideration of the irritation factor associated with the signal but not with the light. To provide a reminder and incentive for safety belt use and to avoid subjecting the conscientious belt user to having to hear an audible reminder to do something that he or she has already done, the agency specified that the signal would not function if the driver's safety belt were fastened.

In light of studies concerning the value of a properly designed belt use warning system in improving the rate of belt use, the agency is contemplating including a proposal to amend the FMVSS 208 warning requirements when it issues its forthcoming notice of proposed rulemaking on seat belt comfort and convenience. We would welcome your views on the proposal following its announcement.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

November 19, 1979

Joan B. Claybrook -- Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation

Dear Ms. Claybrook:

This office is evaluating the feasibility and legal implications of a proposed product improvement. We are considering removing the driver's lap-belt buckle switch and associated wiring harness from the seat belt use reminder system currently installed on all AMC and most Jeep vehicles. We believe that eliminating this buckle switch would not detract from the effectiveness of the reminder system.

The lap-belt buckle switch functions to deactivate the audible signal when the driver's restraint system is fastened. We are of the opinion that the effect of its removal would be consistent with the law as stipulated in paragraph S7.3 of 49CFR571.208 and section 125 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended.

Additional support for our opinion that the audible signal need not be belt-use sensitive apparently can be found in the preamble to Docket 74-39; Notice 3, the final amendment to FMVSS 208 which adopted the new reminder system requirements. In that notice, the NHTSA noted that its initial proposal had intended that the audible warning should be dependent on belt use, but that after consideration of comments received, the Agency determined that "Because of the limited benefit, the reminder should be provided at as low a cost as feasible." Therefore, the NHTSA "determined that an audible-visual combination will provide the best reminder at a cost commensurate with the benefits achievable in a limited-duration signal."

The removal of the lap-belt buckle switch would be consistent with these stated objectives. The achievable associated cost reduction is estimated to be approximately $ 1.50/vehicle, and because many, if not all, U.S.-marketed cars use designs with a similar buckle switch, an industry-wide potential savings of $ 15 million per year appears reasonable.

The resultant belt use reminder system would operate the same as today except that both the light and buzzer would activate for 4 to 8 seconds each time the ignition is turned on regardless whether the driver's belt is fastened. Such a system would not likely be judged unacceptable by the motoring public because we believe that the majority of belt users "buckle up" during the time that the reminder system is activated by the operation of the ignition switch. Therefore, the termination of the audible-visual signal would be essentially coincident with the occupant's fastening of the restraint system.

We ask for your prompt concurrence that such a reminder system would be consistent with Federal requirements. The timeliness of your response is important as the potential product savings and consumer price benefits could be realized almost immediately. Because this is a component deletion that does not require design or tooling time, we could implement this change soon after we receive a favorable response.

If you determine that our interpretation of the belt-use reminder system requirements is not correct, we ask that this request be considered as a petition for rulemaking to amend FMVSS 208 such that the audible signal may be, but is not required to be, driver belt-use dependent.

Sincerely,

K. W. Schang Director - Vehicle Safety Programs -- AMERICAN MOTORS CORPORATION

ID: nht79-3.43

DATE: 10/15/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; G. Hunter for R. J. Hitchcock; NHTSA

TO: Rolls-Royce Motors Limited Car Division

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of August 17, 1979, regarding the requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, pertaining to the emergency release warning system for automatic belts.

Paragraph S4.5.3.3(b)(1) of the standard requires an audible and visible warning if the driver's automatic belt system is not in use, as determined by the belt latch mechanism not being fastened. On one of your automatic belt designs the latch mechanism consists of a pivoting bar which slips through a small stitched loop on the end of the belt webbing. You note that this latch mechanism can be fastened without the webbing being connected to the pivot bar, and that in such a case the warning system would not operate even though the belt is not in use. Therefore, you ask if you can install a switch in the automatic belt retractor to detect when insufficient webbing is extended from the retractor to engage with the latch on the door frame. You ask if such a system could be used as an alternative to the existing requirement or, if the standard could be amended to allow the alternative.

In answer to your question, a switch in the retractor of an automatic belt system would not satisfy the current warning system requirement if the system did not also include a switch in the emergency release latch mechanism. Further, the Agency does not believe that it is necessary to amend the standard to allow such an alternative. Although it may be true that the existing warning system could be defeated in a belt system such as you describe, the same is true with most warning system requirements. For example, if the standard provided the alternative you suggest, the automatic belt could be "tied-off" after sufficient webbing was withdrawn from the retractor and the warning system would be defeated. As you know, this method has been used to defeat the warning systems of many manual belts in the past. Therefore, we believe the existing requirement is sufficient to warn vehicle occupants that their automatic belt has been released and should be reconnected.

The "pivot-bar" release mechanism described in your letter appears to comply with the requirements of the standard. However, we believe that the bar should remain in the released position after the belt webbing has been removed so that the warning system will activate. In other words, we assume that the pivot bar does not re-latch automatically after being released but, rather, requires manual re-latching by the occupant.

Regarding your third question we have enclosed, for your information, Notice 14, Docket No. 1-18, which establishes the new requirements related to controls and displays.

ID: nht79-3.44

DATE: 12/28/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Toray Industrie, Inc.

COPYEE: HELENE B. TEKULSKY -- TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENT CENTER, MITSUI & CO. (USA), INC.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to a letter we received from Mitsui & Company asking questions concerning the "resistance to light" test in paragraph S5.1(e) of Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, as it applies to polyester seat belt webbing. You asked whether it is true that this paragraph will not be enforced for dacron and polyester webbing until an appropriate test method can be incorporated in the standard, and whether such a test method is being developed.

In a July 23, 1976, letter to the Celanese Fibers Marketing Company the agency stated that the Standard No. 209 test procedure for resistance to light was developed to test nylon webbing and that the procedure does not give meaningful results for the new polyester webbings. Therefore, Celanese was informed that the requirement would not be enforced for polyester webbing until a new procedure could be developed. This letter was placed in our public docket for the benefit of all interested parties (in our "Redbook" interpretations file). The agency does not intend to place an announcement of this interpretation in the Federal Register, however, since the standard will soon be amended to incorporate an appropriate test procedure for dacron and polyester webbing.

The new test procedure was developed for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration by the Narrow Fabrics Institute and the Society of Automotive Engineers Task Force on Webbing. The new procedure would require the use of a plain glass filter instead of the Corex B filter currently required. The agency anticipates rulemaking to incorporate this new procedure sometime early next year, depending on rulemaking priorities.

I am enclosing a copy of our 1976 letter to Celanese for your information.

Sincerely,

ENC.

JULY 23, 1976

John Turnbull -- Celanese Fibers Marketing Company

Dear Mr. Turnbull:

This responds to your March 19, 1976, recommendation that paragraph S5.1(c) of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, be amended to clarify that the temperature specified in the "resistance to light" test procedure is intended to be "black panel" temperature rather than "bare bulb" temperature.

The procedures outlined in Standard No. 209 for the "resistance to light" test were adopted from the Bureau Standards's procedures for testing seat belts. The standard was developed by an industry and government group, which included Celanese Fibers, as a simplification and improvement of the A.S.T.M. Designation E42-64 procedure. The "resistance to light" test was-established to test nylon webbing, which was the standard material used in seat belt webbing at that time.

We recognize, however, that the industry now uses dacron and polyester materials in seat belt webbing, and that the Standard 209 test procedure developed to test nylon does not give meaningful results for these new materials. Therefore, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not enforce the requirements of paragraph S5.1(e) of Standard No. 209 in the case of seat belt webbing made of dacrons and polyesters, and will not until appropriate testing procedures can be developed and incorporated in the standard for these new materials.

Procedures for testing systems containing materials other than nylon are under development and we plan to initiate rulemaking to incorporate these procedures into standard 209. You should understand that our commencement of a rulemaking proceeding does not signify that the rule in question will be issued. A decision as to the issuance of the rule is made on the basis of all available information developed in the course of the rulemaking proceeding, in accordance with statute criteria.

We would appreciate any data you may be able to provide regarding colorfastness tests for fabrics other than nylon.

Sincerely,

HERLIHY FOR Stephen P. Wood -- Assistant Chief Counsel, NHTSA

November 16, 1979

HUGH OATES, ESQ. -- Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Oates:

We have been in contact with Mr. William Smith at NHTSA for the past two years regarding the enforcement of paragraph S5.1(e) of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, "resistance to light test" for polyester seatbelt webbing.

It is our understanding that an amendment to the above standard had been suggested as meaningful results for seatbelt webbing of dacrons and polyesters could not be ascertained from the test as it stands. We further understand that, until an appropriate testing method is devised, paragraph S5.1(e) of Standard 209 will not be enforced for dacron and polyester webbings.

What we would like to know is whether an announcement to the above effect will appear in the Federal Register, whether an alternative testing method is being developed, and if this is the case when the new method is expected to be adopted by NHTSA and incorporated into Standard 209.

We would appreciate it if you would send your written reply to our questions to the following gentleman and a copy of the letter sent to us.

Mr. Katsufumi Mitsui General Manager Industrial Textile Department Toray Industries Inc. 2-2, Nihonbashi-Muromachi, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, Japan

Should you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call at (212) 973-4880 to discuss them.

We look forward to hearing from you soon.

Very truly yours,

MITSUI & CO. (USA), INC.;

Helene B. Tekulsky -- Technical Development Center

cc: K. Mitsui;

W. Smith;

Mitsui - Tokyo

ID: nht79-3.45

DATE: 08/21/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Pacific & Atlantic Marketing Services

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 21, 1979, request for information on how to obtain the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) approval for a child seating device, the G.T.A. Booster Cushion, you wish to market in the United States.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq.), a copy of which is enclosed, does not authorize NHTSA to approve products. Section 114 of the Act requires "self-certification" by manufacturers that their products comply with applicable standards.

According to your letter, the product you wish to market is "designed primarily to raise children to see out the windows of an automobile" and is meant for children in the 5-10 year old age group. You also state that the device can be used with a lap or lap-shoulder seat belt or a child harness to restrain a child.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child Seating Systems, establishes performance requirements for items of equipment used to seat a child being transported in a motor vehicle. Although the G.T.A. Booster Cushion does not have an integral restraint system, it could be covered by Standard No. 213 if it is designed to seat a child.

Standard No. 213 does not currently specify the size or age range of children to which the standard is applicable, while NHTSA's proposed Standard No. 213-80, a copy of which is enclosed, does specify a size range. In previously interpreting Standard No. 213, however, the agency has stated that the standard is intended to apply only to child restraints or seats for children weighing 50 pounds or under.

If the G.T.A. Booster Cushion will only be used by children larger than those intended to be covered by Standard No. 213, the G.T.A. Booster Cushion would not be required to meet the performance requirements of the standard. We note that the advertisement accompanying your letter makes no mention of any size or age limitations for children using the seat. Further, the agency is concerned that even if the seat and advertisement clearly indicated such limitations, the G.T.A. Booster Cushion will be bought for and used by children smaller and younger than those limits. Regardless of whether it is covered by the standard or not, the G.T.A. Booster Cushion is considered an item of motor vehicle equipment. Therefore, 1420) would apply to any safety-related defect in the G.T.A. Booster Cushion.

The agency is interested in learning of any test data that you have concerning the protection provided by use of the G.T.A. Booster Cushion. In particular, the agency is interested in learning of any tests comparing the protection provided by use of the G.T.A. Booster Cushion in conjunction with a lap or lap-shoulder seat belt, with the protection provided by use of only a lap or a lap-shoulder seat belt. Copies of that information should be sent to:

Mr. Ralph Hitchcock, Chief Crashworthiness Division Office of Vehicle Safety Standards National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

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

SINCERELY,

PACIFIC & ATLANTIC MARKETING SERVICES

JUNE 21, 1979

Associate Administrator for Rule Making, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

Dear Sir,

I would appreciate you delineating the correct procedure I should follow to gain your Department's investigation and approval to market a new concept in Automobile Child Seating, for the 5-10 year old age group.

The G.T.A. Booster Cushion has performed excellently in both dynamic tests and real-life situations in Australia for the past 18 months, (see attached leaflet herewith, and product samples with Mr. V. G. Radovich), was designed primarily to raise children to see out the windows of an automobile, thus alleviating child stress and enabling everyone in the automobile to have a safer, comfortable and more enjoyable trip. The G.T.A. Booster Cushion can be used with the adult lap, lap sash seat belts or child harness restraints. The Booster Cushion raises the child virtually into the adult height position, where the design ensures the correct location of the adult seat belt restraint across the child's lap or in the case of lap sash, across the child's neck, chest and lap, therefore alleviating the danger of the buckle harming the child in those areas during a sudden impact or stop.

Additionally, the G.T.A. Booster Cushion has two notches, one located at either side where the back and base pieces are joined. These designed patented notches ensure that on a forward or rear impact, the lap section of the seat belt grips in these notches and stops any torpedoing action (as happens with regular household cushions) of either the child or the Booster Cushion.

The G.T.A. Booster Cushion is also extremely comfortable, lightweight and requires no installation. Sir, I would appreciate it if you would consider my request and advise direction at your earliest convenience.

Thank you.

Graham Budrodeen President

THE GTA BOOSTER CUSHION (Brochure omitted.)

ID: nht79-3.46

DATE: 06/18/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPREATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 21, 1979, letter confirming your discussions with Roger Tilton of my staff relating to the emergency exit requirements of school buses that are constructed with an additional exit door. The additional door is installed so that the vehicle can be better used as a general transit vehicle when not in use for school purposes.

The statements that you make in your letter are, for the most part, accurate. However, your third statement which indicates that the additional door could not be marked as an emergency exit is not entirely accurate. Additional emergency exits in school buses, beyond those required by Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, must comply with the emergency exit requirements applicable to exits in non-school buses. If the door to which you refer is not designed or constructed as an emergency exit but rather is designed as an additional door for the routine loading and unloading of passengers, it need not be labeled as an emergency exit. If on the other hand the door is intended as an emergency exit and is constructed in accordance with the emergency exit requirements for doors in non-school buses, it should be labeled as an emergency exit in accordance with the labeling requirements for exits in non-school buses.

SINCERELY,

May 21, 1979

Roger Tilton, Office of The Chief Counsel U. S. Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Tilton:

This letter is a follow-up to our phone conversation of May 18, 1979, relative to the usage of a school bus with a side exit door for mass transit.

We explained that the bus or buses would be used for school transportation and during the off hours would be put into service as transporters for the general public.

The general public use requires a rear side exit door in addition to the entrance door at front side.

Our understanding of the conversation was as follows:

1. Bus would meet all Federal Safety Standards for School Buses.

2. Since the vehicle meets the emergency exit requirements mandated by the Federal Standards for school buses - no emergency exits as noted in FMVSS 217, Sections S5.2 and S5.2.1, are required since the vehicle meets the school bus emergency exit requirements.

3. The side exit door could not be labeled as an emergency exit.

I trust that you concur with my recollection of the conversation, and would appreciate your confirmation of this letter. Thanking you in advance, I remain

James Tydings, Specifications Engineer

ID: nht79-3.47

DATE: 03/21/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Sheller-Globe Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your January 22, 1979, letter asking several questions about the application of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. These questions involve the construction of a bus with a door that is made inoperable until its user desires to install a lift gate.

First, you ask whether a door that is always operable must comply with all of the standard's requirements. The answer to this question is yes. In a related question, you ask whether the lettering and operating instructions must be removed if a user subsequently installs a lift gate and the exit no longer complies with the necessary opening dimensions of Standard No. 217.

As you know, only the manufacturer of the vehicle prior to first purchase is responsible for ensuring the compliance of the completed vehicle with the applicable safety standards. Subsequent to the first purchase, no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business may knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with a safety standard.

Any of the above-mentioned businesses may install a lift gate in a vehicle as long as they do not otherwise knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle. Accordingly, for example, a lift gate could be installed as long as sufficient other emergency exits are available in a vehicle so that it remains in compliance with the requirements. The fact that the exit in which the lift is installed no longer complies is not important as long as there continues to be sufficient exits in the vehicle to continue its overall compliance with the standard. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's authority over the modification of vehicles after first purchase extends to preventing the rendering inoperative of the vehicle with the safety standards. The agency does not have the authority to force a modifier of a vehicle, after its first purchase, to undertake other responsibilities. Therefore, it would not be necessary for modifiers to remove the operating instructions or lettering applicable to the former emergency exit, although the NHTSA would encourage them to do so to avoid possible confusion in the event of an accident.

If a dealer or other business installs a lift gate prior to first purchase, it becomes an alterer of the vehicle and must attach an alterer's label indicating compliance of the altered vehicle with the standards. In such a case, the alterer would be required to remove the label and operating instructions from the exit in which the gate was installed.

Finally, you ask whether a door that is constructed so as to be inoperable by either removing the operating mechanism or through the installation of a rub rail over its outside would have to comply with the requirements applicable to joints (Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength). When a door is made inoperable by a vehicle manufacturer in the manner you suggest, it becomes part of the bus wall structure. As such, any joints on the door that would fall within the ambit of the joint strength standard would be required to comply with that standard.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

SHELLER-GLOBE CORPORATION Vehicle Planning and Development Center

January 22, 1979

Office of Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir:

The purpose of this letter is to request interpretation relating to FMVSS 217 - Emergency Exits.

We are receiving requests from our customers to install a door in the right-hand side of the bus. The purpose of the door is to allow for possible installation of a lift gate at a later date, to convert to handicap use. The bus could be equipped with or without a seat installed at the door location.

(1) If the door is in operating condition it is our interpretation it must meet all requirements as to size, labels, operating forces, etc. Is this interpretation correct?

(2) The door would be installed in such a manner it could not be operated. Examples could be no operating mechanism or a rub rail across the door on the outside of the body.

In this case, would the door assembly be considered a part of the body and joints of panels on the door be required to meet FMVSS 221 - Joint Strength?

(3) If the answer to number one is yea, it must comply with all operating force, labels, etc., of FMVSS 217, then if at a later date the customer or dealer installs a lift gate which blocks the opening, is it still a requirement to have the clear 20 x 13 opening, and if it does not have the opening, must the lettering operating instructions, etc., be removed?

(4) If the bus is an adult bus and the door does not serve as an emergency exit after installation of a lift, who assumes the responsibility to make sure the necessary square inch of exits are provided? (As required by S5.2 of FMVSS 217)

Your prompt reply to the above questions will be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours, R. M. Premo - Director Vehicle Safety Activities

ID: nht79-3.48

DATE: 06/06/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Wayne Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 18, 1979, letter asking to what extent the parallelepiped device required by Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, must fit inside a school bus in order to provide the mandated "unobstructed passage."

The agency responded to a request similar to yours in 1976. A copy of that interpretation is included for your information. The essence of that interpretation is that while conducting the test in accordance with S5.4.2.1(a) of the standard, the parallelepiped device must, at a minimum, fit inside a bus so that the device's outside edge is flush with the lower outside edge of the bus body. If your bus complies with this interpretation of the standard, it would be in compliance.

SINCERELY,

Wayne Corporation

May 18, 1979

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

Dear Mr. Levin:

Section S5.4.2.1(a) of FMVSS 217, Bus Retention and Release, requires that the rear emergency door opening of a school bus be large enough to provide the unobstructed passage of a rectangular parallelepiped.

Will the condition illustrated on the enclosed sketch satisfy this requirement? The following applies to this sketch: The rectangular parallelepiped is of the prescribed dimensions, surface "A" is totally within the outline of the body except for the top portion where the body contour slopes forward. The forward side of the rectangular parallelepiped (the side opposite surface "A") is totally inside of the body and contacts the rearmost surface of the passenger seats.

An early reply will be greatly appreciated.

Robert B. Kurre Director of Engineering

SURFACE 'A'

Wayne Corporation An Indian Head Company Wayne Transportation Division Richmond, Indiana

DATE: 5-11-79

SCHOOL BUS REAR EMERGENCY DOOR OPENING PASSAGE (Graphics omitted)

ID: nht79-3.49

DATE: 08/21/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 20, 1979, letter asking a question concerning Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention. You ask whether paragraph S5.4.2.1(a) permits the parallelepiped device to compress the seat cushion when it is inserted in a school bus emergency exit in accordance with the test procedures of the standard. The answer to your question is no.

Paragraph S5.4.2.1(a) states that each rear emergency exit must provide "an opening large enough to permit unobstructed passage of a rectangular parallelepiped device . . ." If the parallelepiped device compresses the seat cushion while being inserted in the bus, its passage is not unobstructed as required by the standard. Accordingly, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concludes that the device must enter the vehicle without compressing the seat cushion.

SINCERELY,

Thomas BUILT BUSES, INC.

July 20, 1979

Roger Tilton Office of the Chief Counsel U. S. Department of Transportation

Subject FMVSS #217, Section - S5.4.2.1(a)

Dear Mr. Tilton:

In reference to the above section of the standard, we quote in part: "In the case of a rear emergency door, an opening large enough to permit unobstructed passage of a rectangular parallelepiped . . . . ."

In a case where the parallelepiped is inserted into the opening. The result is that the parallelepiped compresses the seat cushioning foam. Question, does the opening comply with FMVSS 217 (S5.4.2.1(a))?

Thanking you in advance, I remain.

James Tydings, Specifications Engineer

ID: nht79-3.5

DATE: 08/17/79

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY S. WOOD

TO: Mr. Mike Champagne

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your telephone conversations of July 13, 1979, with Mr. Steve Wood of my office, in which you requested a general explanation of the Federal law concerning auxiliary gasoline tanks and the conversion of gasoline-powered vehicles to propane-powered vehicles.

The following discussion sets forth the implications of these activities under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended. The discussion first looks at the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) applicable to fuel systems and then at the defect responsibilities that might be involved. Next, a brief mention is made of the possibility of product liability suits.

Before getting into the legalities of these installations and conversions, I want to stress my concern about the danger which these practices may pose to the occupants of vehicles which are altered and even to occupants of other vehicles. These practices may seriously increased the risk of fire if these altered vehicles are involved in accidents. Even where there are no legal liabilities, this threat to safety may be present.

The Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue FMVSS's applicable either to entire vehicles or to equipment for installation in vehicles. The only standard relevant to this discussion, FMVSS 301-75, is a vehicle standard. It applies to vehicles which use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F. and which are (1) passenger cars, or (2) multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, or buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less or (3) schoolbuses with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds. If the need were found, a standard could also be issued for fuel systems designed for installation in new or used vehicles.

Under section 108(a)(1)(A) and (b)(1) of the Act, new motor vehicles must comply with the FMVSS's applicable to them until they are first purchased by someone for purposes other than resale. That purchase is completed when the vehicle is delivered to the ultimate consumer. The NHTSA regulations include two measures designed to ensure compliance with applicable FMVSS's until this delivery. First, manufacturers of new vehicles are required to affix to each vehicle they produce a lable which certifies the vehicle's compliance with all applicable FMVSS's. In addition, any person who prior to the first sale, alters a certified vehicle in a manner that significantly affects either its configuration or purpose is considered to be not only an alterer but also a manufacturer and therefore, must recertify the entire vehicle as complying with all applicable FMVSS's. (49 CFR 567.7 and Preamble to 37 F.R. 22800, October 25, 1972). The only alterations that a person may make prior to the first sale of a vehicle without being considered a manufacturer subject to the recertification requirements are minor finishing operations or the addition, substitution or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors, tires, or rim assemblies. (49 CFR 567.7).

Should a noncompliance be discovered in a recertified vehicle, as a result of an alterer's modification, the alterer would be liable for a civil penalty unless he or she could establish that he or she did not have actual knowledge of the noncompliance, and that he or she did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care that the vehicle did not comply. (Section 108(b)(2) of the Act). The civil penalty imposed could be up to $ 1000 for each violation of an applicable FMVSS. (Section 109 of the Act).

With respect to FMVSS 301, the effect of the alterer provisions is that not only must the original gasoline fuel system meet the performance requirements encompassed by the standard but that any auxiliary or replacement tank added by an alterer must meet them also.

If the alterer converts the gasoline fuel system to a propane fuel system, the vehicle must still be recertified. However, FMVSS 301-75 would cease to be a factor since the standard would no longer apply to the vehicle. Propane has a boiling point below 32 degrees F. and FMVSS 301-75 applies only to vehicles using fuel with a higher boiling point. Finally, if the alterer converts a gasoline-powered vehicle so that it is both gasoline-powered and propane-powered, he must recertify the entire vehicle as complying with all applicable standards, including FMVSS 301-75.

After the first purchase of a vehicle for purposes other than resale, tampering with the vehicle is limited by section 108(a)(2)(A). That section in essence prohibits the entities and persons listed below from knowingly removing, disconnecting or reducing performance of equipment or elements of design installed on a vehicle in accordance with applicable FMVSS's. There is no prohibition against an individual person modifying his or her own vehicle. Specifically, the section provides:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or 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 . . .

A person or entity found to have violated this section would be liable for a civil penalty of up to $ 1000 for each violation. (Section 109 of the Act).

If a tamperer adds an auxiliary gasoline tank to a vehicle manufactured in accordance with FMVSS 301-75, and in the process knowingly reduces the performance of the fuel system originally installed in the motor vehicle, he or she has violated section 108(a)(2)(A). (H.R. No. 1191, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 34 (1974). Such reduction of performance could occur, for example, if gasoline from the original system (a fuel system includes the filler pipe, tank, gasoline lines, fuel pump, carburetor, and engine) could be leaked through a rupture in the auxiliary tank and fuel lines, and if the design, materials, construction, installation or location of the auxiliary tank and fuel lines made them more susceptible to rupture than the original fuel system.

If a tamperer removes the original gasoline tank and installs a replacement one, section 108(a)(2)(A) is violated unless the performance (as defined by FMVSS 301-75) of the replacement tank equals or exceeds the performance of the original tank. To determine the relative performance of the replacement tank, a number of issues would have to be examined, including the quality of the replacement tank, the connection of the tank with the filler pipe and fuel lines to the fuel pump, and the location of the tank with respect to surrounding vehicle structures. For example, if unlike the original tank, the replacement tank were sufficiently near surrounding vehicle structures so that those structures might be pushed against or into the replacement tank and cause a rupture in a collision, the performance of the fuel system would have been impermissibly reduced.

There is no liability under section 108(a)(2)(A) in connection with FMVSS 301-75 if the tamperer converts a used gasoline-powered vehicle into a propane-powered vehicle. Modifying safety systems of a vehicle being converted from one vehicle type to another would not violate section 108(a)(2)(A) so long as the modified systems complied with the FMVSS's that would have been applicable to the vehicle had it been originally manufactured as the vehicle type to which it is being converted. For example, in converting a 1978 gasoline-powered car to a propane-powered car, the converter would not be governed by FMVSS 301-75 since that standard did not apply to 1978 propane-powered cars.

The case of a tamperer who modifies a used gasoline-powered vehicle so that it has a dual gasoline/propane system would be essentially the same as that of the person who adds an auxiliary gasoline tank. If the tamperer knowingly reduces the performance of the gasoline system in adding the propane system, he or she has violated section 108(a)(2)(A).

As to safety defect responsibilities under sections 151 et seq. of the Act, persons who alter new vehicles by installing auxiliary or replacement gas tanks or by converting a gasoline fuel system to a propane fuel system as well persons who produce the equipment being installed are fully subject to those responsibilities. Sections 151 et seq. provide that manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must notify owners of vehicles and equipment with safety-related defects and remedy those defects free of charge. As explained earlier the term "manufacturer" includes persons who alter new vehicles by doing more than simply adding, substituting, or removing readily attachable components or performing minor finishing operations. Since alterations involving installation of auxiliary replacement gas tanks or conversion of gasoline systems to propane systems are more substantial, persons who make those alterations are manufacturers.

Thus the alterer who installs auxiliary or replacement tanks or makes propane conversions is responsible for safety defects in the installation of the tanks and propane systems. Installation defects include defects in the method and location of installation.

Under 49 CFR Part 579, the auxiliary and replacement tanks and the propane systems would all be treated as "replacement equipment." Part 579 places the responsibility for safety defects in the performance, construction components, or materials, of replacement equipment on the manufacturer of such equipment. Therefore, the manufacturer who produces auxiliary or replacement tanks or propane systems, as distinct from the alterer who installs such equipment, would be subject to these responsibilities for production defects. A person who both produces such equipment and installs it in new vehicles prior to their delivery to the ultimate consumer would be subject to responsibilities for safety defects stemming from both production and installation of the equipment.

Under section 108(a)(1)(D) and 109(a), any person who fails to provide notification of or remedy for a safety defect is liable for a civil penalty of up to $ 1000 per violation.

Tamperers have no safety defect responsibilities for their tampering. As noted above, only manufacturers of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment are subject to sections 151 et seq. Since the term "manufacturer" is interpreted to refer to those who produce, assemble or import new vehicles or equipment and since tamperers, by definition, deal with used vehicles only, tamperers are not manufacturers.

Finally, there is the larger and more far reaching question of the liability of the alterers, tamperers, and manufacturers in tort. Whether or not these parties are liable under the Act for their actions, they may well be liable in tort. Both alterers and tamperers may be liable for the manner and location in which they install auxiliary or replacement gasoline tanks or propane systems in vehicles. Likewise, the manufacturers of these items of motor vehicle equipment may be liable for their design, materials, maufacture or performance. These persons may wish to consult a local lawyer on their liability in tort.

I hope that you will find this discussion helpful. If you have any further questions I will be happy to answer them.