ID: 2646o

The Honorable Leon E. Panetta
Member, U.S. House of Representatives
380 Alvarado Street
Monterey, CA 93940

Dear Mr. Panetta:

This responds to your inquiry on behalf of Dr. Courtney F. Morgan, a constituent of yours. Dr. Morgan has purchased a 1987 model year Saab. The particular version of the model he saw at the dealership was equipped with manual lap/shoulder safety belts. However, the actual car that was delivered to Dr. Morgan was equipped with automatic safety belts. Dr. Morgan feels that the automatic belts are "hazardous and cumbersome," and asked what he must do in order to remove the automatic belts and have manual safety belts installed in place of the automatic belts. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations to you.

Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act in 1966 (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), a Federal safety standard on occupant crash protection was issued in 1967 requiring the installation of manual safety belts in all new passenger vehicles. Although these manual safety belts have shown their effectiveness as safety devices, only a relatively small number of motorists used their manual belts. As recently as 1984, only 12.5 percent of front seat occupants wore their manual belts. Because so few people used their manual safety belts, the Department issued the first requirement for automatic restraints in passenger cars in 1970, and it was scheduled to take effect in 1973. That implementation date was delayed for a variety of reasons. On June 24, 1983, the Supreme Court of the United States found our decision to repeal the requirement for automatic restraints was "arbitrary and capricious," and ordered us to reconsider the decision (Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 463 U.S. 29). Against this background, former Secretary of Transportation Dole issued a final rule amending the Federal safety standard on occupant crash protection on July 17, 1984.

That decision, which promotes both automatic restraints and State safety belt use laws, provides a comprehensive approach designed to save as many lives as possible as quickly as possible. We believe that effectively enforced State laws requiring the proper use of the manual safety belts that are in most cars on the road today offer our best opportunity to save lives today at virtually no cost to the consumer. The decision also reflects our belief in the value of automatic occupant protection systems, such as air bags and automatic belts, by requiring all new cars to have automatic protection starting with the 1990 model year. The automatic protection requirements are phased in during the preceding three model years, beginning with 10 percent of each manufacturer's 1987 model year cars. Each manufacturer must equip 25 percent of its 1988 model year cars with automatic occupant protection systems, and 40 percent of its 1989 model year cars with automatic occupant protection systems. However, if the Secretary determines not later than April 1, l989, that State belt use laws have been enacted that meet certain criteria and that are applicable to two-thirds of the U.S. population, then the automatic restraint requirements will be rescinded.

The following prohibition appears in section 108 of the Safety Act: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ..." In this case, the automatic safety belts in Dr. Morgan's Saab are a "device or element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard." Removal of the automatic belts would render them inoperative. Therefore, Federal law prohibits Saab, any other manufacturer, and any distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from removing the automatic safety belts from Dr. Morgan's car.

Please note that this Federal prohibition does not prevent Dr. Morgan himself from removing the automatic belts from his car. However, we encourage vehicle owners not to tamper with the occupant crash protection systems installed in their vehicles. If Dr. Morgan were to remove the automatic belts himself and improperly install manual safety belts, he would be putting himself and other vehicle occupants at substantially greater risk of injury in a crash.

Please thank Dr. Morgan for informing us of his views on this subject. We welcome the interest of all concerned citizens on this important subject and I appreciate this opportunity to advise you of our efforts to improve occupant crash protection for all Americans.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel ref:VSA#208 d:2/5/88

ID: 2647o

Mr. Allan J. Lameier
Quality Assurance Specialist, Defense Logistics Agency
Defense Contract Administration Services Management
Area, Dayton
C/O Defense Electronics Supply Center
Dayton OH 45444

RE: A. Lameier 513-684-3915

Dear Mr. Lameier:

This is in response to your letter requesting clarification concerning the classification of a Davey mobile compressor. You state that the manufacturer of the compressor indicates that the wheeled compressor need not comply with Standard No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices and related equipment, because the compressor is not a trailer. Based on the information provided with your letter, we believe that the compressor is not a motor vehicle and is therefore not subject to the requirements of Standard No. 108 or any other Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

By way of background, our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

A "trailer" is defined at 49 CFR /571.3 as "a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle." The mobile compressor shown in the brochure enclosed with your letter appears to be designed for carrying property (the compressor) and for being drawn by a motor vehicle. The answer to your question of whether this compressor is a trailer, then depends on whether the compressor is a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of the Safety Act. Section 102(3) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) defines a "motor vehicle" as

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.

We have interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles such as forklifts and mobile construction equipment which are sold primarily for off-road use, but which incidentally use the public roads to travel from one job site to another, are not considered motor vehicles. On the other hand, vehicles which regularly use the public roads and stay off-road for only limited periods of time are motor vehicles and are subject to our safety standards.

The agency has previously concluded in a July 1, 1980 letter to Mr. E.C. Elliott (copy enclosed) that his company's portable air compressors were not motor vehicles, based on statements that these devices spend the bulk of their useful lives on construction sites and are seldom drawn over public roads by mechanical power. If the Davey portable compressors are used in the same fashion as the compressors discussed in the July 1, 1980 letter, we believe that the Davey compressors were properly classified by the manufacturer as something other than a "motor vehicle". This means that the Davey compressors are not subject to any of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

I hope this information has been useful. My apologies for the delay in responding to your letter.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:57l#VSA d:2/19/88

ID: 2648o

Ms. Laura C. Boniske
2928 Coconut Grove Drive
Coral Gables, FL 33134

Dear Ms. Boniske:

This responds to your letter asking for an interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, as they apply to "materials used in the manufacture of an aftermarket product which will be utilized in the occupant compartment of a vehicle." In an October 27, 1987 telephone conversation with Ms. Hom of my staff, you mentioned in particular an item of equipment consisting of a pad for cushioning safety belts. Generally speaking, items of motor vehicle equipment are not covered by Standard No. 302.

Standard No. 302 is a vehicle standard and as such applies to completed vehicles. No vehicle can be manufactured unless the materials used in it comply with the requirements of the standard. The general rule is that aftermarket products may be added to vehicles, even if the addition of those products causes the vehicle to no longer comply with the requirements of Standard No. 302, without violating the requirements of Federal law.

This general rule is, however, limited by the application of the provisions of Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed). That section specifies: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative . . . 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 . . ." NHTSA would consider the installation of safety belt pads that do not meet the requirements of Standard No. 302 as "rendering inoperative" an element of design (flammability resistance) installed in accordance with an applicable Federal safety standard. Thus, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business that installed a safety belt pad which did not comply with the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302 would be rendering inoperative that element of design, and thereby violating section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. We note also that, since safety belts are safety devices installed in accordance with Safety Standards No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, those commercial businesses would be prohibited from installing the safety belt pad if its installation would impair the effective operation of the belts. Section 109 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of /108.

The prohibitions of /108(a)(2)(A) do not apply to the vehicle owner rendering inoperative some element of design in his or her vehicle. Therefore, aftermarket safety belt pads may be sold to a vehicle owner for installation in his or her vehicle regardless of whether the pad complies with the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302.

There are two factors which ought to be considered by the manufacturers of safety belt pads which do not satisfy the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302. First is the possibility of liability under State and common law if those pads were to catch fire in a situation where a pad complying with Standard No. 302 would not have caught fire, or if those pads burn much more rapidly than pads that comply with Standard No. 302. Second is the possibility of a finding of a safety-related defect in your products. Sections 151-154 of the Safety Act require that, when an item or motor vehicle equipment contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer of the item must recall and repair or replace the defective equipment without charge to the purchaser. In any event, we urge you to ensure that your products would not negatively affect the safety provided by the underlying belt assembly.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:VSA#302#209 d:2/10/88

ID: 2649o

Mr. Lloyd J. Osborn
Chief, Customs and Quarantine Division
Department of Commerce
Government of Guam
590 South Marine Drive
Suite 601, 6th Floor GITC Building
Tamuning, Guam 96911

Dear Mr. Osborn:

This is in reply to your letter of December 11, 1987, to the Office of Vehicle Safety Standards of this agency in which you request a "list of vehicles which have been determined by NHTSA to be excluded as motor vehicles."

The agency does not maintain a list of this nature. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act defines a "motor vehicle" as a vehicle, with or without motive power, manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways. This category includes vehicles capable of off-road use but which are nevertheless generally licensed for use on the public roads. Over the years, NHTSA has provided interpretations that the following types of vehicles are not "motor vehicles": single seat racing cars, stock cars modified to the point that they are no longer licensable for use on the public roads, all-terrain vehicles, racing motorcycles and off-road motorcycles that are trailered over the public roads, golf carts, in-plant vehicles lacking doors and lighting devices, airport crash and rescue vehicles, and shuttle buses, snowmobiles, mobile homes, farm tractors, farm trailers whose use of the public roads is limited to crossing from one field to another, and trailers like mobile compressors which spend lengthy periods of time at an off road worksite and only infrequently travel by road to a new worksite. In addition, the agency does not consider construction cranes to be "motor vehicles". Finally, vehicles manufactured pursuant to military contracts, while "motor vehicles", are nevertheless exempted from compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

If you have any further questions we shall be happy to answer them, as well as furnish whatever other assistance you may require in formulating your Customs procedures.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:CSA d:2/11/88

ID: 2650o

Roderick A. Boutin, Esq.
960 One Main Place
101 S.W. Main Street
Portland, Oregon 97204

Dear Mr. Boutin:

This responds to your letter to Steve Kratzke, of my staff, asking for a statement of the legal requirements that would apply to a new product one of your clients plans to introduce. You provided no description of this product in your letter, other than to state that it "alters the alignment of an upper torso restraint to the increased comfort of the wearer." You also stated in the letter that the product would initially be sold as an aftermarket accessory to be installed by consumers, but that it might eventually be sold to manufacturers to be installed in new vehicles. In a telephone conversation with Mr. Kratzke on November 20, 1987, you stated that this product would clip the shoulder belt to the lap belt near the middle of wearer's abdomen.

Although we understand your concern that safety belts be comfortable for the wearer, we have significant reservations about this product. I hope the following discussion explains those reservations and the effect of our regulations on the product.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) gives this agency the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standards No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages (49 CFR /571.208 and /571.210, respectively), applicable to new vehicles, and to establish Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR /571.209), applicable to new seat belt assemblies. It does not appear that any of these regulations would apply to your client's product, however.

Additionally, you are not required to get some "approval" from this agency before selling the product. NHTSA has no authority to approve or endorse motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment to ensure their compliance with the safety standards, and also investigates other alleged safety-related defects.

While none of our safety standards appear to apply directly to your client's product, there are several statutory responsibilities your client must assume when it manufactures the product. All manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. The agency does not determine the existence of defects except in the context of a defect proceeding, so we are unable to say at this time whether this product might or might not contain such a defect.

However, this product raises a host of safety concerns that we would advise your client to carefully consider. Section S7.1.2 of Standard No. 208 specifies that the intersection of the shoulder belt with the lap belt shall be at least 6 inches from the front vertical centerline of a 50th percentile adult male occupant with the seat in its rearmost and lowest adjustable position. Attaching the shoulder belt to the lap belt in the middle of the abdomen, instead of joining the belts at the latchplate off to the side of the occupant, would cause the belts to no longer comply with this requirement of Standard No. 208 and would significantly alter the distribution of crash forces on the occupant. The lap and shoulder belts as currently installed distribute the crash forces over the skeletal structure of the occupant. The proposed device to attach the shoulder belt to the lap belt near the middle of the abdomen would significantly increase the loading on the occupant's abdomen, a part of the body that cannot withstand the same loading levels as the skeletal structure. This increase in abdominal loading could have serious safety implications for the wearer of the belt. Additionally, by realigning the shoulder belt, the device would seem to increase the likelihood that a wearer of the belt would twist toward the middle of the vehicle, so that the person could be partially or completely unrestrained by the shoulder belt.

Further, it is possible that the device attaching the shoulder belt to the lap belt near the middle of the wearer's abdomen could not withstand the forces of the crash, and would allow the shoulder belt to detach. Since the shoulder belt could have an excessive amount of slack in it, the occupant's head would be likely to contact the vehicle interior. All of these possibilities raise serious safety concerns with respect to this proposed device.

In addition, use of this product could be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly tampering with devices or elements of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Shoulder belts are installed in the front seating positions of most vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less in compliance with Standard No. 208. If the installation of this product causes the shoulder belts to offer less effective occupant protection, commercial establishments could not legally install the product on customers' vehicles.

The prohibition in section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who may install or remove any items on safety belt systems regardless of the effect on compliance with Standard No. 208. However, our policy is to encourage consumers not to tamper with the safety belts installed in their vehicles. Installation of this product by any person would be inconsistent with that policy.

If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#208 d:2/11/88

ID: 2652o

Ms. Joanne Salvio
Fire Research Corporation
26 Southern Blvd.
Nesconset, NY 11767

Dear Ms. Salvio:

This responds to your November 10, 1987, letter asking whether the "Guardian Gate" your company manufactures for firefighting vehicles is subject to Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components. The answer to your question is yes, if the Gate is installed on new vehicles and if the area into which the door leads contains one or more seating positions.

The advertising material you enclosed states that the Guardian Gate "is designed to help firefighters while they are riding to fires in the jump seat of apparatus [sic]." The advertisement said that the unique feature of the Guardian Gate is its locking mechanism which enables the gate to be locked "on both its sides to the vehicle; the cab side, as well as the pump panel side." The advertisement said this "dual locking" feature is intended to minimize the likelihood that the gate will be opened either unintentionally or because of "hazardous conditions" (an explanation of which the advertisement did not include).

Paragraph S4 of Standard No. 206 states: "Components on any side door leading directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations shall conform to this standard. ..." (S4 exempts certain types of doors from Standard No. 206, but these are doors that are readily removable or that are not provided for retaining occupants. Since the Guardian Gate falls into neither of these two categories, the exemptions are not relevant to your inquiry.)

From the information you provided in your letter and in telephone calls between you and Ms. Hom of my staff, we understand that the standing area on the firefighting vehicle enclosed by the Guardian Gate contains a jump seat. Because "seating accommodations" referred to in S4 include jump seats, a Guardian Gate that is installed to enclose a jump seat area on a new firefighting vehicle must comply with Standard No. 206. This determination is consistent with an August 13, 1980 letter from NHTSA to Mr. L. Steenbock of the FWD Corporation (copy enclosed), in which this agency stated that a door leading to a standing area that contains no seating position would not have to comply with Standard No. 206. Because Standard No. 206 applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks (e.g., firefighting vehicles), and not to replacement parts for installation in used vehicles of these types, you may sell the Guardian Gate to vehicle owners without regard as to whether the Gate complies with the performance requirements of the standard. However, we urge you to consider meeting those requirements voluntarily, to ensure that the Gate will perform to specified levels for the safety of firefighters riding in the "jump seat area" of the vehicle. You should also be aware that you are responsible under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, to ensure that your product contains no defect relating to motor vehicle safety. If you or this agency determines that a safety related defect exists, you must notify purchasers of your product of the defect and remedy the problem free of charge.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:206 d:2/11/88

ID: 2653o

Mr. J.V. McFadden
President
MTD Products Inc.
P.O. Box 36900
Cleveland, Ohio 44136

Dear Mr. McFadden:

This responds to your letter concerning the applicability of Federal or State requirements to a hydraulic logsplitter mounted on a frame carriage equipped with highway high speed wheels and a trailer towing hitch. While we can not answer your question concerning applicable State requirements, we provide the following information on the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

By way of background information, our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse commercial products. Instead, the Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is required to certify that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The Vehicle Safety Act prohibits the manufacture or sale of a noncomplying product unless, despite the exercise of due care, the manufacturer doesn't have reason to know that the noncompliance exists.

Any vehicle that falls within the statutory definition of the term "motor vehicle" must comply with all applicable safety standards. Section 102(3) of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) defines a "motor vehicle" as

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.

We have interpreted this language as follows. The definition does not include equipment which uses the highways only to move between job sites and which typically spends extended periods of time at a single job site. In this case, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental, and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured.

On the other hand, when a vehicle frequently uses the highway going to and from job sites, and stays at the job site for only a limited time, it is the agency's position that the vehicle in question is a "motor vehicle" in the statutory sense, since the on-highway use is more than "incidental".

Notwithstanding the foregoing, a vehicle is not classified as a motor vehicle if it is of such an unusual configuration that it is easily distinguished from normal traffic and it has a top speed of not more than 20 miles per hour.

A determination of whether or not a vehicle falls within the definition of motor vehicle is based upon a consideration of all of the above factors. Given the information that you have provided us, it appears that the hydraulic log-splitter is a motor vehicle. From the picture in the brochure, it is clear that the vehicle has an unusual configuration. This alone, however, is not adequate to prevent a determination that the vehicle is a motor vehicle within the meaning of the statute. More important is the fact that the vehicle may make frequent use of the highway, staying at one particular job site a limited amount of time. The provision of highway speed tires indicates the manufacturer's intention to produce a vehicle which is suitable for driving at highway speeds.

Because the tow-behind logsplitter is equipped with a trailer tow hitch, we would consider the vehicle a trailer, defined in the agency's regulations as:

a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle. (See 49 CFR 571.3.)

The safety standards which apply to all trailers are Standard No. l08, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment; Standard No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars; and Standard No. ll5, Vehicle Identification Number--Basic Requirements. The content requirements for the vehicle identification number are found at Part 565. In addition, if the trailer is equipped with brakes, it must meet Standard No. l06, Brake hoses, Standard No. ll6, Motor vehicle brake fluids, and applicable requirements of Standard No. l2l, Air brake systems. All of these standards are found in 49 CFR Part 57l.

We regret the delay in responding to your request. If you have further questions on this matter, please contact us.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel ref:VSA#571 d:2/11/88

ID: 2654o

Martin Chauvin
Chief, Carrier Safety Bureau
State of New York
Department of Transportation
Albany, NY 12232

Dear Mr. Chauvin:

This is a response to your letter of last year where you asked us to address a statement allegedly made by an unidentified school bus manufacturer that a school bus driver's seat equipped with an upper torso restraint or shoulder harness violates "head impact protection" requirements contained in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. I apologize for the delay in this response. Nothing in our Federal standards prohibits a manufacturer from installing a seat belt assembly that includes a lap belt and upper torso restraint at the driver's seat of a school bus.

Standard 208, Occupant Crash Protection, specifies occupant protection requirements for the driver's seat of all buses. Section S4.4 of that standard gives a manufacturer the choice of equipping a bus driver's seat either with a complete automatic restraint system, a Type 1 seat belt assembly (which consists of a lap belt), or a Type 2 seat belt assembly (which consists of a lap and shoulder belt). There are no "head impact protection" requirements in Standard No. 208 for the driver's seating position in a bus. Thus, the driver's seat of all buses may be equipped with a lap and shoulder belt if the manufacturer chooses to do so.

Standard 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, sets forth additional requirements for occupant crash protection for school buses. Section S5.3 of Standard 222 refers to a "head protection zone," and establishes head impact requirements within the head protection zones. However, the head protection zones are established with respect to passenger seats in the school bus. Standard 222 does not contain any head impact protection requirements for the driver's seat in school buses.

I hope you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel ref:208#222 d:2/11/88

ID: 2655o

Mrs. Charlotte E. O'Neil
l46 Transit Street
Waterbury, CT 06704

Dear Mrs. O'Neil:

This responds to your letter concerning the location of the clutch, brake and accelerator controls in a school bus that you drive. We apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that the seat of the school bus is about four inches too far to the right, and that these controls are therefore not in the usual location relative to the seat. You stated: "In order to reach the brake pedal I have to cross my right foot over my left," and expressed concern that a driver might accidentally hit the accelerator instead of the brake. You asked whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l0l, Controls and Displays, prohibits placing controls in such difficult to reach locations and, if not, whether there is any way to get the law changed.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues safety standards covering new motor vehicles and/or new motor vehicle equipment. Since these standards do not apply to used vehicles, the issue of whether the bus you drive was required to meet Standard No. l0l depends on its date of manufacture.

As you noted in your letter, Section S5.l of Standard No. l0l requires that certain controls, including the service brake, accelerator, and clutch, be "operable by the driver" when the driver is restrained by the crash protection equipment required by Standard No. 208. You asked whether, with this wording, any control that can be reached at all, even with difficulty, must be considered "operable." One of the stated purposes of Standard No. l0l is "to ensure the accessibility . . . of motor vehicle controls . . . in order to reduce the safety hazards caused by the diversion of the driver's attention from the driving task, and by mistakes in selecting controls." Thus, it is the intent of section S5.l to ensure that drivers are able to operate specified controls as part of the normal driving task. We note, however, that neither Standard No. l0l nor any other standard specifies the precise location of the service brake, accelerator and clutch controls, either relative to each other or to the seat.

In answer to your question concerning how you may be able to get requirements changed "to forbid putting controls in difficult to reach locations," interested persons may petition the agency to commence rulemaking to issue or amend safety standards. I am enclosing a copy of the agency's regulation which sets forth procedures for submitting petitions for rulemaking.

I am forwarding your letter to NHTSA's Office of Enforcement, which investigates consumer complaints about safety. A copy of this correspondence is being placed in the public docket.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:l01 d:2/16/88

ID: 2656o

Mr. Mike Kaizaki
Manager, Truck Tire Engineering
Yokohama Tire Corporation
Corporate Office
60l S. Acacia
Fullerton, CA 9263l

Dear Mr. Kaizaki:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Standard No. ll9, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. You asked whether it is permissible to place two tire size designations, 385/65R22.5 in larger letters and l5R22.5 in small letters, on the same tire. The answer to your question is no.

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

The practice of labeling two tire sizes on one tire, as you requested in your letter, was once a fairly common practice and was referred to as "dual-size markings." Dual-size markings were a marketing effort by tire manufacturers to try to persuade consumers to change the size and/or type of tire on their vehicles, by representing that this particular tire size was an appropriate replacement for two different sizes of tires. However, the practice of using dual-size markings confused many consumers about the size of the tire on their vehicle. The only purpose of the Federally required markings on tires is to provide consumers, in a straightforward manner, with technical information necessary for the safe use and operation of the tire. The agency concluded that it was inappropriate to permit a marketing technique that was confusing many consumers to defeat the purpose of the required markings on tires. Accordingly, dual-size markings were expressly prohibited for passenger car tires subject to Standard No. 109; 36 FR 1195, January 26, 1971.

The marking requirements for tires subject to Standard No. 119 are set forth in section S6.5 of the standard. Section S6.5(c) requires that each tire be marked on both sidewalls with "the tire size designation as listed in the documents and publications designated in S5.1." Section S5.1 of Standard No. 119 requires each tire manufacturer to ensure that a listing of the rims that may be used with each tire the manufacturer produces is available to the public. This may be done either by the individual manufacturer furnishing a document to each of its dealers, to this agency, and to any person upon request, or the manufacturer may rely on the tire and rim matching information published by certain standardization organizations.

While Standard No. 119 does not expressly prohibit dual-size markings, section S6.5(c) uses the singular when it refers to the "tire size designation" to be labeled on the tire. Considering the past history associated with dual-size markings, this agency interprets section S6.5(c) of Standard No. 119 as prohibiting a manufacturer from marking a tire with two different size designations, even if a document or publication designated in S5.1 were to show two different size designations for the same tire size.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel ref:119 d:2/16/88