ID: 10644

Mr. Ralph T. Welch
840 SE Summit Drive
Roseburg, OR 97470

Dear Mr. Welch:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) specify "the type of odometer" placed in a motor vehicle. As explained below, the FMVSS do not so specify. If an odometer is provided, its mileage may be stated in kilometers.

Standard No. 101, Controls and displays, specifies requirements for the location, identification, and illumination of motor vehicle controls and displays. Neither Standard No. 101 nor any other FMVSS specifies that an odometer be placed in a motor vehicle or that it register distance in miles, rather than kilometers. However, S5.3.1 (referencing Table 2 "Identification and Illumination of Displays") of Standard No. 101, specifies that if an odometer is provided and the odometer measures mileage in kilometers, the mileage must be stated as "KILOMETERS" or "km."

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:101 d:4/10/95

ID: 10647

J. Gregory Studemeyer, Esq.
1804 Bull Street
Post Office Box 12201
Columbia, SC 29211-2201

Dear Mr. Studemeyer:

This responds to your letter of January 5, 1995, to this agency and your telephone conversation with Walter Myers of my staff on June 12, 1995, regarding the school bus standards we administer. You asked whether "your agency or any other federal agency notifies educational institutions of these [school bus] requirements."

The answer is no. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not maintain data on all schools or school districts throughout the nation, and does not routinely communicate with individual schools or school districts. The agency does, however, attend and disseminate information at school bus meetings and conferences nationwide and publishes all changes in school bus requirements in the Federal Register. In addition, NHTSA works closely and frequently with state directors of pupil transportation with regard to school transportation matters. In South Carolina, that official is the Director, Office of Transportation, Department of Education, 1429 Senate Street, Room 512, Columbia, SC 29201. Their telephone number is (803) 734-8244, and their fax number is (803) 734-8624.

Also for your information please find enclosed a fact sheet prepared by this office summarizing Federal school bus safety requirements. If you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:571 d:6/27/95

ID: 10650

Paul N. Wagner, President
Bornemann Products, Inc.
402 Industrial Drive
Bremen, IN 46506

Dear Mr. Wagner:

This responds to your letter of January 10, 1995, requesting further interpretation of how the requirements of Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, would apply to an integrated seat.

Your first question is a follow-up to our December 23, 1994, letter concerning the requirements of S4.2.1 of Standard No. 207. Section S4.2.1 states:

Except for vertical movement of nonlocking suspension type occupant seats in trucks or buses, the seat shall remain in its adjusted position during the application of each force specified in S4.2.

You asked for confirmation that a "rachet-style seat recliner mechanism may not have its adjustment teeth shear during the test, ... assuming that the shearing of the recliner's teeth is a change in detent position." This is correct.

Your second question concerns "continuous engagement." You described "continuous engagement" as follows:

continuous engagement ... simply implies that the seat recliner or slides will always be in a locked position, even during adjustment. Some slides and recliners, for adjustment purposes, must be "unlocked," or released, allowing for the adjustment to be made, but then automatically relock when the desired position is achieved; this adjustment is not considered to be as continuously engaged, since the mechanism is in a released state during adjustment.

An apparatus that might be considered to be a continuous engagement device might be a screw- drive mechanism, which can be adjusted by revolution, but would always have a locking feature, even during adjustment (and never be in a released position).

You asked whether the recliner on an integrated seat must have "continuous engagement" to comply with the safety standards.

In the December 23 letter, I explained that NHTSA may choose to test a seat in any of the range of possible reclined positions. However, this does not require "continuous engagement." If a seat has specific adjustment positions, and is released or unlocked to move between those positions, NHTSA would not test the seat between adjustment positions.

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

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

ref:207 d:3/21/95

ID: 10666

Mr. Stuart Sacks
Tradepro, Inc.
7350 N.W. 35th Street
Miami, FL 33122

Dear Mr. Sacks:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Philip Recht, our former Chief Counsel, in which you stated that you are considering importing tires from the Hangzhou General Rubber Factory, which has been assigned NHTSA manufacturer identification number 7D. You stated that the tires do not display the "molded D.O.T. code numbers," and that Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 119, New pneumatic tires for motor vehicles other than passenger cars (49 CFR 571.119), "clearly does not require [DOT code numbers] for non- passenger tires." Your reading of FMVSS No. 119 is not correct.

I assume from your letter that you are considering importing only non-passenger car tires. This letter, then, will address only the labeling requirements for non-passenger car tires under FMVSS No. 119 and 49 CFR 574. I further assume that by "DOT code numbers" you mean the tire identification number (TIN) required by 49 CFR 574.5.

49 U.S. Code '30112 provides that no person may sell in or import into the United States any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment that does not comply with all applicable FMVSSs. With respect to non-passenger car tires, which are items of motor vehicle equipment, section S6.5 of FMVSS No. 119 requires specific items of information to be marked on the tire sidewalls. Those markings must be no less than 0.078 inch high and must be "raised above or sunk below the tire surface" a specified distance. Among other things, the markings must include the TIN (S6.5(b)).

Paragraph S6.5(b) of FMVSS No. 119 requires the TIN to comply with part 574. Part 574.5 requires that the TIN be permanently molded into or onto tire sidewalls as specified in Figure 1 of Part 574, and specifies what information the TIN must contain. The TIN can be branded into or onto the sidewalls of retreaded tires after the fact, but not new tires. On new tires, the TIN must be molded into or onto the tire sidewalls by the original manufacturer.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Ref:119#574 d:5/25/95

ID: 10673

Mr. Paul Pinoski
Project Engineer
SLP Engineering, Inc.
1501 Industrial Way North
Toms River, NJ 08755

Dear Mr. Pinoski:

This responds to your letter to me in which you requested an interpretation of the term "vehicle capacity weight," as defined in Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire selection and rims (49 CFR 571.110). I apologize for the delay in our response.

FMVSS No. 110 applies to passenger cars. Section S4.3 of the standard requires a placard to be placed on the door of the glove compartment or other accessible place on which shall be displayed, among other things, the "vehicle capacity weight." This term is defined in S3 as meaning "the rated cargo and luggage load plus 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity." You asked how to obtain the "rated cargo and luggage load," so that you can calculate vehicle capacity weight.

The agency does not define the term "rated cargo and luggage load" or otherwise regulate how that load is determined. The term simply refers to the vehicle manufacturer's determination of the cargo and luggage carrying capacity of the vehicle. The choice of methodology to be used in making that determination is left to the discretion of the vehicle manufacturer.

From a safety standpoint, the important issue is the overall value specified by the vehicle manufacturer as the loaded weight of a vehicle. That value is also known as the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). The GVWR informs a vehicle owner how heavily he or she can load a vehicle. The only express regulatory limitation on the GVWR manufacturers may assign to their vehicles is set forth in 49 CFR 567.4(g)(3), which 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." (Emphasis added.) "Rated cargo load" and "rated cargo and luggage load" are interchangeable terms.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:110#567#571 d:4/24/95

ID: 10694

Mr. Randal K. Busick
President
Vehicle Science Corporation
315 East Eisenhower Parkway
Suite 211
Ann Arbor, MI 48108

Dear Mr. Busick:

This responds to your letter of February 2, 1995, asking three questions regarding the anchorage location requirements in Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages.

Your first question concerns S4.3 of Standard No. 210 which states, "(a)nchorages for seat belt assemblies that meet the frontal crash protection requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208 ... are exempt from the location requirements of this section." You asked whether a manual 3-point belt installed at a seating position with an air bag is considered a seat belt assembly that meets the frontal crash protection requirements of S5.1. Assuming that the vehicle is certified to the requirements of Standard No. 208 using the air bag, the answer is yes.

Your second question asks what is meant by the phrases "belt bears upon the seat frame" and "does not bear upon the seat frame" in S4.3.1.1 and S4.3.1.2 of Standard No. 210. You stated that examples would be useful. NHTSA has previously said that the phrase "bears upon the seat frame" "refers to seat belt assemblies in which the seat belt presses or rests directly on the main structural frame of the seat." If a more specific answer is needed in the context of a specific design, please send us information on the design in question.

Your third question asked whether the anchorage in a drawing which accompanied your letter complies with the location requirements in S4.3.1.1(a) of Standard No. 210. Section S4.3.1.1(a) states:

If the seat is a nonadjustable seat, then a line from the seating reference point to the nearest contact point of the belt with the anchorage shall extend forward from the anchorage at an angle with the horizontal of not less than 30 degrees and not more than 75 degrees.

As your letter correctly explains, prior to a recent amendment, this section in referring to "anchorage," referred to the "nearest contact point of the belt with the hardware attaching it to the anchorage." That amendment was a result of an amendment of the definition of "seat belt anchorage" to include hardware in the definition. Thus, the amendment was not intended to change the location of the "nearest contact point." In reviewing your drawing, the part labeled "belt and buckle assy." appears to be the belt for purposes of S4.3.1.1(a). While it is somewhat unclear in your drawing, it appears that the "nearest contact point" is either the part labeled "belt and buckle pivot/fixing" or the oval part around that part and adjacent to the part labeled "belt and buckle assy." In either case, the "line from the seating reference point to the nearest contact point" would be within the permissible range of angles.

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

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

ref:210 d:4/3/95 August 25, 1981, letter to Mr. Roger E. Maugh, Ford Motor Company. This letter, a copy of which is enclosed, discusses one example of a design which did not bear upon the seat frame.

ID: 10695

Mr. Randal Busick
President
Vehicle Science Corporation
315 East Eisenhower Parkway, Suite 211
Ann Arbor, MI 48108

Dear Mr. Busick:

This responds to your letter of February 2, 1995, providing further information in response to concerns raised in a January 5, 1995, letter from our office. Our January 5 letter raised concerns about a device labeled "Slider Bar" in the drawing enclosed with a previous letter from your company. As described in your letter, the "Slider Bar" is a bar near the floor of the vehicle that allows the seat belt to be moved to facilitate ingress and egress from the rear seats. "The forward (hooked) end of the slider bar is the point at which the belt always comes to rest when in use (buckled)." Your February 2 letter provides further information about and pictures depicting the "Slider Bar." You asked if this information resolved the concerns raised by agency staff.

The drawing provided with your original letter shows the "Slider Bar" adjacent to the seat. Agency staff were concerned that this design would result in the pelvic portion of the belt lying across a person's thighs, rather than on the pelvis. The pictures accompanying your February 2 letter show that the "Slider Bar" is actually rearward of the seat and that this concern is not warranted. Therefore, we agree that, if all requirements of Standards Nos. 208, 209, and 210 are met, this design would not be a problem.

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

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

ref:208 d:3/22/95

ID: 10706

Mr. Takashi Tohse
Quality Assurance Group
Fabricated Glass General Division
Asahi Glass Company
2-1-2 Marunouchi
Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100 Japan

Dear Mr. Tohse:

This responds to your inquiry about whether various ways of marking your automotive glazing comply with the marking requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. Specifically, you ask the agency to assess the merits of what you refer to as "plural company Ids" in your logo mark. By "plural company Ids," we assume you mean more than one distinctive designation or trademark. We also assume that you are a "prime glazing material manufacturer" which the Standard defines as "one who fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material."

Under Standard No. 205, a replacement windshield is required to be marked with information that includes the prime glazing manufacturer's "distinctive designation or trademark" and a manufacturer's code mark assigned by this agency. See, S6.1 and S6.2.

You first ask, "Can a manufacturer use different kinds of Ids for different grades of products?" The answer to this question is yes. We understand that what you refer to as "Ids" is the manufacturer's distinctive designation or trademark. As long as an item of glazing has a manufacturer's distinctive designation or trademark, a manufacturer would comply with this requirement. The Standard does not prohibit a manufacturer from varying this distinctive designation or trademark among its different grades. (We note that each of your products would be marked with the same manufacturer's code mark that is assigned by NHTSA. This code mark will help NHTSA identify the manufacturer of the glazing material for purposes of defect and noncompliance recall campaigns.)

Your second question asks "Can a manufacturer used the same distinctive designation or trademark for two different companies?" The answer is yes. The requirements do not prohibit two companies from sharing a distinctive designation or trademark. As mentioned above, the glazing must be marked with the manufacturer's code mark that identifies the glazing's actual manufacturer.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

ref:205 d:4/10/95

ID: 10710

Mr. Paul D. Kelly
Albertson, Ward & McCaffrey
36 Euclid Street
Woodbury, NJ 08096

Dear Mr. Kelly:

This responds to your letter of February 2, 1995, requesting permission or a waiver from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to allow one of your clients, a "corporation specializing in modification of vehicles for handicapped and disabled citizens," to modify a vehicle for one of its customers. You explained that the customer "suffers from a neuromuscular disorder which renders her partially paralyzed." You further explained that "(s)he cannot turn the factory steering wheel because it is too thick for her to hold and too wide for her to see the gauges." You described previous modifications done for this customer as follows:

the steering box on a stock vehicle (would be) removed and the steering mechanism would be adjusted at a machine shop to a low effort or zero effort steering gear. From this point after- market steering wheels and column adapter kits would be installed to accept this new steering wheel.

You explained that your client was concerned that they would no longer be permitted to make such modifications as removal of the original steering wheel also results in removal of the air bag. During an April 4, 1995 phone call with Mary Versailles of my staff you explained that the vehicle is also equipped with a wheelchair lift and that the floor of the vehicle has been lowered. As explained in this letter, replacement of the steering wheel is permitted provided that a lap/shoulder safety belt is installed at the driver's position.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (49 USC '30111). Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform

to all applicable safety standards before they can be offered for sale (49 USC '30112). If a certified vehicle is modified, other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components, prior to its first retail sale, the person making the modification is an alterer and is required to certify that, as altered the vehicle continues to conform to all applicable safety standards (49 CFR '567.7).

After the first retail sale, there is one limit on modifications made to vehicles. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard (49 USC '30122). In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition would require a business which modifies motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard.

NHTSA has exercised its authority to issue Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR '571.208). Standard No. 208 requires light trucks and vans manufactured on or after September 1, 1991 to be capable of providing occupant crash protection to front seat occupants when the vehicle is crash tested at 30 miles per hour (mph) into a concrete barrier. A vehicle that provides this crash protection will increase the safety of vehicle occupants. The air bag installed in the customer's vehicle is one means of complying with this requirement.

As a result of this new requirement, this agency received a number of phone calls and letters, from both van converters and individuals suggesting that the new light truck and van crash testing requirement will, in effect, prohibit van converters from modifying vehicles to accommodate the special needs of persons in wheelchairs. The agency also received a petition asking for an amendment to the light truck and van crash test requirement in Standard No. 208 to address this problem.

As a result on that petition, on March 2, 1993, this agency amended Standard No. 208 to allow manufacturers of light trucks and vans an alternative to complying with the existing requirement (58 FR 11975). Under the amendment, "vehicles manufactured for operation by persons with disabilities" are excluded from the light truck and van automatic crash protection requirement. Instead, these vehicles must be equipped with a Type 2 manual belt (integrated lap and shoulder belt) or Type 2A manual belt (non-integrated lap and shoulder belt) at the front outboard seating positions. A "vehicle manufactured for operation by persons with disabilities" is defined as

vehicles that incorporate a level change device (e.g., a wheelchair lift or a ramp) for onloading or offloading an occupant in a wheelchair, an interior element of design intended to provide the vertical clearance necessary to permit a person in a wheelchair to move between the lift or ramp and the driver's position or to occupy that position, and either an adaptive control or special driver seating accommodation to enable persons who have limited use of their arms or legs to operate a vehicle. For purposes of this definition, special driver seating accommodations include a driver's seat easily removable with means installed for that purpose or with simple tools, or a driver's seat with extended adjustment capability to allow a person to easily transfer from a wheelchair to the driver's seat.

Based on the information you provided, the customer's van would come within this definition. Therefore, if your client would be considered an alterer, it may certify that, with the air bag removed, the vehicle continues to conform to all applicable safety standards, provided that the safety belts are not removed. If the modification is done after the first retail sale, removal of the air bag would not violate the "make inoperative" prohibition, provided that the safety belts are not removed.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have other questions or need some additional information, please contact Mary Versailles at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:208#VSA d:5/1/95 The March 2 final rule was further amended on May 18, 1994 to allow the installation of Type 2A manual belts (59 FR 25826).

ID: 10715

Mr. Mark Warlick
Four Winds International Corporation
791 C.R. 15 P.O. Box 1486
Elkhart, IN 46515-1486

Dear Mr. Warlick:

This responds to your fax asking about the meaning of "designated seating position" for purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You noted that the RVIA Handbook, dated April 23, 1991, states that "it is the NHTSA's position that, as a minimum, there must be as many [designated seating positions] as there are sleeping accommodations." You asked whether this statement is still in effect, and, if so, where you can find it in the Code of Federal Regulations. You also asked what defined area makes up one sleeping position.

This will confirm that it continues to be NHTSA's position that, as a minimum, there must be as many designated seating positions as there are sleeping accommodations. This position is based on the definition of "designated seating position," which is set forth at 49 CFR 571.3. Under that definition, the question of whether a position in a vehicle constitutes a designated seating position is dependent in part on whether the position "is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion." If a manufacturer designs a vehicle to sleep a particular number of persons, e.g., six persons, it is logical to assume that those six persons will ride in the vehicle to their sleeping destination. Therefore, there must be at least six designated seating positions in the vehicle. A more complete discussion of this issue is presented on p. 23234 of the enclosed Federal Register notice (Final rule amending the definition of "designated seating position," April 19, 1979).

We do not have a definition of what area makes up one sleeping position. NHTSA would consider all available information to determine the number of sleeping positions in a vehicle. This would include the size of the sleeping accommodations, e.g., whether an area is large enough to accommodate more than one person, and advertising by the manufacturer and dealers.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please feel free to call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:571 d:4/24/95