ID: 86-1.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/25/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: H. Hakaya -- Mazda (North America) Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear

This is in response to your letter of June 21, 1985 requesting, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 512, confidential treatment for your letter of that date and of the two attachments thereto.

Your request has been granted. NHTSA will treat your June 21, 1985 letter and the attachments confidentially. Pursuant to a January 22, 1986 telephone conversation between and Heidi Lewis Coleman of my staff, our letter to you regarding this matter will be made publicly available to the extent indicated on the copy which is enclosed. Also enclosed is a copy of this confidentiality determination, which indicates the extent to which it will be made publicly available.

Sincerely,

Kathleen DeMeter Assistant Chief Counsel for General Law

Dear

This responds to your request for this agency's concurrence that a proposed mini-van, which would use a front-wheel-drive passenger car platform as its base, would qualify as a light truck under 49 CFR Part 523.5(a)(5). The vehicle would have an airduct lying on top of the floor and running longitudinally rearward from the dash area between the two front seats and then turning outboard to enter the bottom of the 'B' pillar. While the top of the airduct would be above the level floor plane in the area between the front seats and immediately behind the front seats, it would not extend under the second or third seats, which would be removable. The floor would otherwise be flat from the forward most point of installation of those seats to the rear of the automobile's interior.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the statutes administered by NHTSA, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to make any necessary classification of vehicles and required certifications and to otherwise ensure that its vehicles meet all regulatory requirements. This letter provides the agency's opinion based on the facts stated above. As discussed below, it is our opinion that the proposed mini-van would qualify as a light truck under 49 CFR Part 523.5(a)(5).

Section 523.5 provides in relevant part:

(a) A light truck is an automobile other than a passenger automobile which is either designed for off-highway operation, as described in paragraph (b) of this section, or designed to perform at least one of the following functions:

(1) Transport more than 10 persons:

(2) Provide temporary living quarters:

(3) Transport property on an open bed:

(4) Provide greater cargo-carrying than passenger-carrying volume: or

(5) Permit expanded use of the automobile for cargo-carrying purposes or other nonpassenger-carrying purposes through the removal of seats by means installed for that purpose by the automobile's manufacturer or with simple tools, such as screwdrivers and wrenches, so as to create a flat, floor level, surface extending from the forwardmost point of installation of those seats to the rear of the automobile's interior.

With respect to the location of the airduct, it is necessary in order to come within section 523.5(a)(5) that the removal of seats creates a flat, floor level, surface extending from the forwardmost point of installation of those seats to the rear of the automobile's interior. Since the airduct would not extend under the removable second or third seats, and since the floor is otherwise flat from the forward most point of installation of those seats to the rear of the automobile's interior, it is the agency's opinion that the vehicle would qualify as a light truck under section 523.5(a)(5).

This does not constitute an opinion as to whether this vehicle would be classified as a passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle, or truck for purposes of the safety standards. We note that the classification of the proposed mini-van for purposes of safety standards would be covered by 49 CPR Part 571.3 rather than Part 523. We have enclosed a copy of a letter dated December 1, 1983, which addresses some of the issues involved in making such classification.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones

Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Mr. H. Nakaya Mazda (North America), Inc. 23777 Greenfield Road Southfield, Michigan 48075

Dear Mr. Nakaya:

This responds to your October 13, 1983 letter regarding the classification of certain hypothetical mini-van models as either passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, or trucks for purposes of complying with Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Your first question involved the effect of changes in floor pan geometry on this classification. You postulate separate cargo and passenger versions of the mini-van, with each version using identical suspension, steering and driveline components and each vehicle being of unibody construction. However, slight differences would exist in the floor pans of the two vehicles, with the passenger version having a lowered floor pan section to accommodate the rear seat.

Assuming that the cargo version has greater cargo-carrying volume than passenger carrying volume (sec, e.g., 49 CFR Part 523), we would consider that version to be a truck. (in the unlikely event the cargo version does not have that ratio of volumes, all versions of the mini-van would probably be considered passenger cars.) Since the passenger version of a mini-van would almost certainly have greater passenger-carrying volume than cargo carrying volume, that vehicle would be treated as a passenger car unless it meet the agency's "multipurpose passenger vehicle" definition. That definition provides, in relevant part, that an MVP is a motor vehicle designed to carry 10 people or less and which is constructed on a "truck chassis." The "chassis" of a vehicle includes the vehicle's power train as well as its entire load supporting structure. In the case of a vehicle using unibody construction, this load supporting structure would technically include the floor pan.

The fact that a common chassis is used in a family of vehicles, one member of which is classified as a "truck," is evidence that the common chassis is a "truck chassis." However, further evidence is needed to demonstrate that the chassis has truck attributes, such as information showing the design to be more suitable for heavy duty, commercial operation than a passenger car chassis. This further evidence is necessary since otherwise the introduction of a cargo carrying version of an existing passenger car could result in the reclassification of the passenger car into a MPV, if the agency only considered the issue of whether a common chassis is used. For example, in the past, certain station wagons have been marketed without rear seats and with other modifications which render them the functional equivalent of a cargo van. The agency does not believe it to be appropriate in such a situation to reclassify the basic station wagon as an MPV.

The floor pan difference mentioned in your first question do not appear to be so significant as to require treating the two mini-van versions as having different chassis. The agency does not consider minor floor pan differences to negate the fact that two versions of the same family of vehicles employ the same "chassis," since to do so would likely mean that no unibody vehicles could be classified as MPV's. However, in the absence of any information regarding the extent to which the common chassis has truck-like attributes, we cannot state whether the vehicle would be treated as an MPV.

Your second question involves the effect of various seating designs on whether a unibody constructed mini-van is classified as an MPV. Since the seats are not part of the vehicle chassis, these variations should have no impact on whether the vehicle is an MPV. (Fuel economy classifications are dependent on seat configuration however--see 49 CFR Part 523.)

Your third question involves the significance of the relative sales levels, order of introduction, and actual existence of two versions (cargo and passenger) of the mini-van. In theory, a passenger version of a mini-van could be classified as an MPV even if no cargo version were offered in the U.S. or indeed if none were ever produced. In such a situation, however, the manufacturer would be under a heavy burden to demonstrate that what is sold as a passenger carrying vehicle in fact has a "truck chassis," with heavy duty, commercially suited attributes. The existence of a truck version, and the fact that the truck version was either designed first or was the principal focus of the design would be additional factors which would tend to indicate that the chassis is a truck chassis.

If you have further questions in this matter, please contact us.

Sincerely,

Originally Signed By

Frank Herndt Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4767

"Dear Ms. Dittemore: Thank you for your letter regarding a bil introduced in the Iowa Senate that, among other features, would establish light transmittance limits for 'sunscreening devices' that may be applied to the windows of motor vehicles operated in Iowa. I apologize for the delay in this response. You requested our office's interpretation about whether provisions of this bill would violate or be preempted by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205). As you are aware, this agency is authorized by section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. One of the standards that we have issued under this authority is Standard No. 205, which applies to all new vehicles and all new glazing materials for use in motor vehicles. Among the requirements set forth in Standard No. 205 are specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent light transmittance in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars). Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) specifies that no person may manufacture, import, or sell any vehicle in the United States unless it is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. Pursuant to section 108(b)(1) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1)), this prohibition no longer applies after the vehicle is sold to a consumer. However, both before and after the first sale, section 108(a)(2) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)) provides that '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 notor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . .' In the case of windows on a passenger car, this provision of Federal law means that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business could install window tinting film that would result in a light transmittance of less than 70 percent for any window of the car, because such action would 'render inoperative' the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 205. This same provision of Federal law prohibits a service station from permanently removing safety belts or permanently disconnecting brake lines on motor vehicles. Please note that the Safety Act does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners. Vehicle owners may alter their own vehicles and operate them on the highways as they please, even if the vehicle's windows no longer comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205. Hence, no provision of a Federal statute or this agency's regulations prevents individual vehicle owners themselves from tinting the windows on their vehicles. The individual States, however, have the authority to regulate the modifications that vehicle owners may make to their own vehicles and to establish requirements for vehicles operated or registered in that State. The Iowa Senate bill enclosed with your letter appears to be an attempted exercise of this inherent authority. You asked for comments on whether this bill, if adopted as law in Iowa, would be preempted by Standard No. 205. I assume you were referring to the provision in this Iowa bill that would prohibit the operation of motor vehicles required to be registered in the State of Iowa if the vehicle has a 'sunscreening device' on the front side windows with light transmittance of less than 35 percent or on the rear window and side windows behind the driver with light transmittance of less than 20 percent. Since the original glazing on the vehicle could have had light transmittance of as little as 70 percent, this provision would permit overall light transmittance levels of as low as 25 percent for the front side windows and 14 percent for the rear windows. This provision in the Iowa bill, and similar provisions in statutes adopted by other States, does not purport to legitimize conduct -- the rendering inoperative of glazing by firms installing window tinting -- that is illegal under Federal law. In other words, firms installing window tinting that results in light transmittance of less than 70 percent on any window of a passenger car would have violated the 'render inoperative' provision in Federal law, even if Iowa had in place a statute that would permit persons to operate and register vehicles whose windows had light transmittance that was far lower. Conversely, the Federal law setting requirements for the manufacture and sale of new vehicles and limiting the modifications commercial enterprises can make to those vehicles does not prohibit the State of Iowa from establishing lesser limits on owner modifications to their own vehicles and as the minimum requirements for vehicles to be operated and registered in the State of Iowa. Thus, there does not appear to be any legal conflict between Federal law and this Iowa bill, and Iowa would be free to enforce the provisions of this bill if it is enacted into law. We would, however, urge the State of Iowa to carefully consider the adverse safety consequences that would result from enacting this bill into law. NHTSA has determined that a 70 percent light transmittance minimum for new vehicles is the appropriate level to assure motor vehicle safety. Your letter indicated that Iowa had also adopted this 70 percent light transmittance minimum as a State requirement for new vehicles. It is not clear why the State of Iowa would conclude that the safety need that justifies requiring not less than 70 percent light transmittance in new vehicles is satisfied by allowing light transmittance levels as low as 25 and 14 percent in vehicles to be operated in the State. I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need additional information about this topic, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam3278

Dear Mr. Halper: This responds to your letter of March 13, 1980, asking severa questions about Standard No. 213, *Child Restraint Systems*, on behalf of California Strolee, Inc.; I would first like to correct an apparent misunderstanding you hav about remarks made by Mr. Hitchcock in a meeting with you and Mr. Richard Hyde of Strolee. Mr. Hitchcock's remarks were to the effect that the agency encouraged beneficial innovations in child restraints and would be receptive to amending the standard to remove any restrictions to beneficial innovations. Any amendments to the standard would be made in accordance with the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act. The agency does not engage in 'ad hoc' rulemaking procedures.; The following are the responses to the fourteen questions you asked. 1. You asked how the minimum surface area requirements set in sectio 5.2.2 for the sides and back of child restraints are to be measured. You were specifically concerned about measuring 'curved surfaces, without some guidelines, the exact place where the side stops and the back begins cannot be ascertained.' The area's measurements can be determined by positioning the appropriate test dummy in the restraint. The area within the dummy's outline projected directly rearward and the areas within the dummy's torso outline projected directly sideward must comply with the minimum surface area for the back and sides of the restraint.; 2. You are correct that section S5.2.2.1(c) only requires a minimu radius of curvature and does not establish a minimum surface area for fixed or movable surfaces in front of the child. The agency encourages manufacturers to utilize designs with large surface areas at least equivalent to the shield designs incorporated in some current restraints.; 3. You asked whether shoulder belt grommets are prohibited by sectio 5.2.3.2. In response to Strolee's petition for rulemaking on section 5.2.3.2, the agency has amended the section to permit the use of grommets that comply with the protrusion limitation requirements of section 5.2.4.; 4. You raised a question about whether section 5.4.3.3 requires the us of a five-point belt system. The agency's intent was to allow the use of hybrid systems, which for example, might use upper torso restraints, a crotch strap and a shield instead of a lap belt. Thus, the agency provided in section 5.4.3.3(c) that a crotch strap must connect to the 'lap belt or other device used to restrain the lower torso.' The agency established the minimum radius of curvature requirements of section 5.2.2.1(c) to ensure that any surface used in place of a lap or other belt would not concentrate forces on a limited area of the child's body. The recent notice on the standard, appearing in the Federal Register of May 1, 1980, amends the standard to clarify section 5.4.3.3.; 5. You objected to the buckle force requirements set in section 5.4.3. as being too high. The goal of that section is to prevent young children from opening the buckles while ensuring that adults can do so. As explained in the December 1979 final rule, section 5.4.3.4 is based on research done by the National Swedish Road and Traffic Institute. The research showed that young children could not open a buckle requiring a release force of 12 or more pounds, but could open buckles requiring a lower release force. That same research found that buckles requiring a release force greater than 20 pounds would be difficult for adult women to open. The agency is not aware of any research contradicting the Swedish study and no commenter to the docket submitted any data showing that the Swedish study is inaccurate.; 6. You asked for an interpretation of the words 'integral' an 'position' as those words are used in section 6.1.2.3.1(c) and 6.1.2.3.2(c). Amended Standard 213 is intended to address, among other things, the problem of misuse of child restraints. The principal misuse involves the failure to attach buckles and latches. To ensure that children using child restraints are afforded protection notwithstanding such misuse, the standard specifies that the belts are to be attached to restraining shields during testing only if they are integral parts of the shields. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (1977) defines 'integral' as meaning 'formed as a unit with another part.' Attachment of belts that are integral parts is permitted since they are intended to remain attached whether or not the restraint is in use and thus are not subject to the type of misuse described above.; The word 'position' was also used in its common dictionary sense t mean put in place or arrange. Thus during the test, each movable surface will be put into place in accordance with the manufacturer's instruction. The positioning requirements only apply to the arrangement of the movable surface and does not permit the attachment of any belts that are not an integral part of the movable surface.; 7. You stated section 6.1.2.4 is inconsistent with S6.1.2.3.1 an 6.1.2.3.2 because 6.1.2.4. supposedly allows attachment of the restraint system's belts, while sections 6.1.2.3.1 and 6.1.2.3.2 do not allow belts to be attached that are not an integral part of a fixed or movable surface.; Your interpretation is not correct. Section 6.1.2.4 sets specification for tightening the restraint system's belts, prior to the sled test. However, both sections 6.1.2.3.1 and 6.1.2.3.2 provide that the belt adjustment requirements of section 6.1.2.4 are not to apply to belts that are not an integral part of the fixed or movable surface.; 8. You asked how the agency defined 'target point' as that term is use in section 5.1.3.2. Section 5.1.3.2 requires that 'no portion of the target point on either side of the dummy's head' shall pass through two specified planes during the sled test. The agency used the term 'target point' to refer to the center of the target on the side of the test dummy's head. THe location of the target is specified in the engineering drawing incorporated in part 572, *Anthropomorphic Test Dummies*, Subpart C.; 9. You asked whether the standard establishes strength specification for belts. Section 5.4 establishes performance requirements that the belt systems used in child restraint systems must meet. The section does not establish specific breaking strengths for the belts, other than the requirement in section 5.4.1(a) that after being subjected to 'the abrasion requirements of Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*, the belts must have a breaking strength of not less that 75 percent of the strength of the unabraided webbing....' Of course, belts which are to be attached during testing must not break during the test if the effect of the breakage is to cause a violation of section 5.1.2 and 5.1.3.; 10. You expressed concern about 'the difficulty in running qualit control tests where the buckle hardware is not subject to specifications, but only performance standards.' The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391) only authorizes the agency to issue requirements that are as performance oriented as possible. The Act places responsibility on a manufacturer to devise its own specifications which will ensure that its product performs as required.; 11. You asked our opinion whether the Waterbury buckle complies wit Standard No. 213. THe agency does not issue opinions as to whether a particular design does or does not comply with the requirements of a standard. Under section 114 of the Vehicle Safety Act, manufacturers must certify that they comply with all applicable federal standards.; 12. We have answered your questions concerning the use of soft foa armrests or trays in our earlier letter of April 17, 1980.; 13. You asked whether 'a buckle affixing the crotch strap to some othe portion of the car seat must comply with the tension (sic) requirements of section 5.4.3.5. That section provides that 'Any buckle in a child restraint system belt assembly designed to restrain a child using the system shall' meet specified buckle release requirements. Since a crotch strap is used in a child restraint system to restrain the child, a buckle used with the crotch strap must comply with the requirements of section 5.4.3.5.; 14. You raised a question about the safety of buckles that 'do not sna or latch, but rather require the turn of a knob to seal them together.' Your concern is that the knob may not be fully turned and thus the buckle may not be fully latched. Any buckle, regardless of its specific design must comply with the release requirements of section 5.4.3.5. In the preamble to the December 1979 final rule, the agency encouraged manufacturers to use push button buckles, similar to those used in automobile belts, so that people unfamiliar with child restraints can readily unbuckle them in emergencies. Use of push button buckles would also solve the potential problems of incomplete latching that may be associated with knob-type buckles.; If you have any additional questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5373

"Dear Mr. Anderson: This responds to your letter of May 2, 1994 requesting information on which of the recent amendments to Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (57 FR 49413, November 2, 1992, and 57 FR 57020, December 2, 1992), would apply to Type A-1 school buses. Your letter notes that Type A- 1 school buses have a capacity of 16-20 passengers and a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of less than 10,000 pounds. The recent amendments to Standard No. 217 set new requirements for the provision of emergency exits based upon the seating capacity of the school bus (S5.2), set performance requirements for emergency exit window and emergency roof exit release (S5.3), revised the extension requirements for side doors and set extension requirements for emergency roof exits (S5.4), and revised the identification requirements (S5.5). The effect of each of these amendments on Type A-1 school buses is discussed separately below. Provision of Emergency Exits (S5.2) The recent amendments listed above revised S5.2.3 to specify the number and type of exits required on school buses, including Type A-1 school buses. This section states: The area in square centimeters of the unobstructed openings for emergency exit shall collectively amount to at least 432 times the number of designated seating positions in the bus. The amount of emergency exit area credited to an emergency exit is based on the daylight opening of the exit opening. The section also specifies the type of emergency exits which must be installed to meet this requirement. All school buses, including Type A-1 school buses, are required to have either a rear emergency exit door or a side emergency exit door and a rear push-out window. These are the same exits required by Standard No. 217 before the recent amendments. After deducting the daylight opening of the front service door and the required exit(s), any remaining exit area must be provided by installing additional exits in the following order: (1) a side emergency exit door, (2) a emergency roof exit, and (3) any combination of emergency exit doors, emergency roof exits, and emergency exit windows. Please note that, while these new requirements apply to all school buses, it is unlikely that a 20 passenger school bus will require additional exits. Under the new requirements, a school bus with 21 designated seating positions (20 passengers plus the driver) is required to provide 9,072 square centimeters of exit area. A school bus with a front service door and either of the mandatory options (rear emergency exit door or side emergency exit door and rear push-out window) should easily exceed this amount. To illustrate, in the past, the agency has estimated that the average front service door has a daylight opening of 12,916 square centimeters. For school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, a rear emergency door that is the minimum size required to meet the extension requirements has a daylight opening of 6,270 square centimeters. A side emergency door that is the minimum size required to meet the extension requirements has a daylight opening of 6,954 square centimeters. A rear push- out window that is the minimum size required has a daylight opening of 5,002 square centimeters. Emergency Exit Release (S5.3) The recent amendments added performance requirements for the release mechanisms for emergency exit windows and emergency roof exits on school buses. As explained above, the recent amendments should not require either of these types of exits to be installed on Type A-1 school buses. However, if either of these types of exits are voluntarily installed on Type A-1 school buses, the release mechanisms must comply with these requirements. In the recent amendments to Standard No. 217, some of the performance requirements, including the release requirements in S5.3, apply to 'each' emergency exit. This language extends these requirements to any emergency exit door in a school bus, including voluntarily installed ones. Other requirements apply to 'required' emergency exits. (See, for example, S5.5.3(c) discussed below.) Those requirements do not apply to voluntarily installed emergency exits. Emergency Exit Extension (S5.4) The amendments of the extension requirements also apply to Type A-1 school buses. The recent amendments revised the extension requirements for side doors on school buses with a GVWR of more than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) and set extension requirements for emergency roof exits on school buses with a GVWR of more than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds). These amendments also affect school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, as the requirements specify that these vehicles are to comply with the same requirements as school buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds (except for the minimum size for rear emergency exit doors). If a Type A-1 school bus has a side emergency exit door, that exit is required to comply with the amended requirements concerning access to the exit. Under the new requirements, side emergency exit doors are required to provide an opening at least 114 centimeters high and 61 centimeters wide. In addition, an aisle 30 centimeters wide (referenced to the rear edge of the door) must be provided from the longitudinal centerline of the bus to the exit. A seat bottom is allowed within this aisle if it flips up when not in use such that it no longer is within the aisle. Finally, no portion of a seat or restraining barrier may block access to the latch. In addition, if an emergency roof exit is installed in a Type A-1 school bus, it is required to provide an opening at least 41 centimeters high and 41 centimeters wide under the new requirements. Finally, all emergency exit doors, including emergency exit doors on Type A-1 school buses, are required to have a 'positive door opening device' that, among other things, prevents the door from closing if it has been opened beyond a certain point (see, S5.4.2.1(a)(3)). Emergency Exit Identification (S5.5) Finally, the recent amendments revised the identification requirements (S5.5) for exits on all school buses, including Type A-1 school buses. As revised, each required emergency exit is required to be marked with the words 'Emergency Door' or 'Emergency Exit,' as appropriate. For emergency exit doors, the location of this marking was not changed by these amendments. For emergency window exits and emergency roof exits, location requirements were added. In addition, each required emergency exit must be outlined with retroreflective tape. Please note however, that the identification requirements do not apply to voluntarily installed emergency exits (i.e., exits in excess of those required by S5.2.3). You should be aware that there was a discrepancy concerning the size of the retroreflective tape caused by the metric conversion in the final rule. I have enclosed is a copy of a July 7, 1993 letter to Mr. Thomas D. Turner of the Blue Bird Body Company which discusses this issue. As explained in that letter, we plan to issue a correction notice of the November 2, 1992 rule that would specify a minimum size of 2.5 cm for the tape. Until the correction is issued, NHTSA will not take enforcement measures regarding tape size against a manufacturer who uses 1 inch wide retroreflective tape. To summarize and answer your specific questions, Type A-1 school buses typically would not be affected by the recent amendment requiring either emergency roof exits or emergency window exits. However, required emergency exits (including a rear emergency exit door) are required to be outlined with retroreflective tape. In addition, all exits (required and voluntary) must comply with the new performance requirements for release and extension. With respect to your receipt of an oral interpretation from agency staff, I would also like to emphasize that, to the extent there are questions concerning the meaning of any NHTSA standard or regulation, the only agency interpretations which are authoritative and which therefore can be relied upon by manufacturers are those issued in writing by the Chief Counsel. We have reminded agency staff not to make formal, or informal, oral statements that might be misinterpreted by manufacturers as official agency guidance on which they may safely rely. Please note that recent delay of the effective date of the recent amendments applies only to provision of emergency exits (S5.2) (59 FR 22997, May 4, 1994). The other amendments were effective on May 2, 1994. I also note that the May 4 notice does not state 'that it only applys (sic) to School Buses with capacity of 24 to 90 passengers.' The notice does refer to tables in a previous NPRM which listed the types of exits required under the proposal for buses with a capacity in that range. I have also enclosed a copy of the recent final rules for your use. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures";

ID: 1983-3.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/01/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mazda Inc. -- H. Nakaya

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear Mr. Nakaya:

This responds to your October 13, 1983 letter regarding the classification of certain hypothetical mini-van models as either passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, or trucks for purposes of complying with Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Your first question involved the effect of changes in floor pan geometry on this classification. You postulate separate cargo and passenger versions of the mini-van, with each version using identical suspension, steering and driveline components and each vehicle being of unibody construction. However, slight differences would exist in the floor pans of the two vehicles, with the passenger version having a lowered floor pan section to accommodate the rear seat.

Assuming that the cargo version has greater cargo-carrying volume than passenger carrying volume (see, e.g., 49 CFR part 523), we would consider that version to be a truck. (In the unlikely event the cargo version does not have that ratio of volumes, all versions of the mini-van would probably be considered passenger cars.) Since the passenger version of a mini-van would almost certainly have greater passenger-carrying volume than cargo carrying volume, that vehicle would be treated as a passenger car unless it meets the agency's "multipurpose passenger vehicle" definition. That definition provides, in relevant part, that an MPV is a motor vehicle designed to carry 10 people or less and which is constructed on a "truck chassis." The "chassis" of a vehicle includes the vehicle's power train as well as its entire load supporting structure. In the case of a vehicle using unibody construction, this load supporting structure would technically include the floor pan.

The fact that a common chassis is used in a family of vehicles, one member of which is classified as a "truck," is evidence that the common chassis is a "truck chassis." However, further evidence is needed to demonstrate that the chassis has truck attributes, such as information showing the design to be more suitable for heavy duty, commercial operation than a passenger car chassis. This further evidence is necessary since otherwise the introduction of a cargo carrying version of an existing passenger car could result in the reclassification of the passenger car into an MPV, if the agency only considered the issue of whether a common chassis is used. For example, in the past, certain station wagons have been marketed without rear seats and with other modifications which render them the functional equivalent of a cargo van. The agency does not believe it to be appropriate in such a situation to reclassify the basic station wagon as an MPV.

The floor pan differences mentioned in your first question do not appear to be so significant as to require treating the two mini-van versions as having different chassis. The agency does not consider minor floor pan differences to negate the fact that two versions of the same family of vehicles employ the same "chassis," since to do so would likely mean that no unibody vehicles could be classified as MPV's. However, in the absence of any information regarding the extent to which the common chassis has truck-like attributes, we cannot state whether the vehicle would be treated as an MPV.

Your second question involves the effect of various seating designs on whether a unibody constructed mini-van is classified as an MPV. Since the seats are not part of the vehicle chassis, these variations should have no impact on whether the vehicle is an MPV. (Fuel economy classifications are dependent on seat configuration however--see 49 CFR Part 523.)

Your third question involves the significance of the relative sales levels, order of introduction, and actual existence of two versions (cargo and passenger) of the mini-van. In theory, a passenger version of a mini-van could be classified as an MPV even if no cargo version were offered in the U.S. or indeed if none were ever produced. In such a situation, however, the manufacturer would be under a heavy burden to demonstrate that what is sold as a passenger carrying vehicle in fact has a "truck chassis," with heavy duty, commercially suited attributes. The existence of a truck version, and the fact that the truck version was either designed first or was the principal focus of the design would be additional factors which would tend to indicate that the chassis is a truck chassis.

If you have further questions in this matter, please contact us.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

October 13 1983

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Councel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Sreet, S .W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt :

A great deal of confusion exists in the automotive industry concerning the precise classification of 'mini-vans'. Specifically, these vehicles could be classified as passenger vehicles, multipurpose vehicles (MPV), or light-duty trucks (LDT), depending on the criteria applied. Mazda (North America), Inc. is interested in this subject and has a number of items that have not been satisfied by existing definitions.

Please examine the following questions and respond to relevant safety compliance implications, if any.

1. Existing standards (MVSS ? 571.3 (b)) indicate the criteria for a multipurpose vehicle as being 'constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road use'. Assuming the original truck is of unibody construction --a) Is the same chassis considered in the modification of the floor pan from LDT to MPV? (See Sketch 1).

b) What impact would floor pan geometry modification from the truck versions to the MPV version have on MPV classification, assuming identical suspension, steering and driveline components?

c) Can a common floor pan be used for both the truck version and the MPV version, with the addition of a flat platform in the truck version --

1) Bolted in place (removable)?

2) Welded in place (permanent)? (See Sketch 2).

2. Assuming the original truck is of unibody construction, what influence does the rear seating design have on MPV classification if the additional seating configurations are --

a) Pedestal assemblies bolted to the floor pan that when removed result in a flat surface? (See Sketch 3).

b) Attached seat cushion and back assemblies that fold forward together at a single pivot with respect to the floor pan result in a flat surface? (See sketch 4).

c) Separate seat cushion and back assemblies that fold forward sequentially at two pivot points resulting in a flat surface? (See Sketch 5).

d) Fold down seat backs attached at the pivot point to a stationary seat cushion resulting in a flat surface? (See Sketch 6).

3. If a MPV classification is desired as 'derived' from a truck chassis --

a) Assuming the engineering, design, tooling, testing, etc. is completed for the truck version, must the truck version be built at al1 to insure MPV classification?

b) Assuming a truck version must be introduced, can the MPV version be introduced first followed by a later truck version introduction?

c) Assuming a truck version must be introduced, can the truck and MPV be introduced simultaneously?

d) Assuming a truck version must be introduced, must the truck be introduced in the United States market to insure MPV classification?

e) Assuming a truck version must be introduced, does the proportion of truck versus MPV versions sold influence the MPV classification if --

1) Both versions are sold in the United States?

2) Only the MPV version is sold in the United States?

Thank you for your help in this important matter.

Very truly yours,

H. Nakaya Manager

HN/ab

cc:Mr. R. Fairchild

INSERT GRAPH

ID: nht71-2.8

DATE: 02/18/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Arctic Enterprises Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 7 setting forth certain facts about the manufacture and marketing of Arctic mini-bikes, and asking for assurance that Arctic is not a "manufacturer" of "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.

The criteria determinative of this question were published in the interpretation on mini-bikes (34 F.R. 15416). Persons who manufacture mini-bikes are not "manufacturers" if they

"(1) do not equip them with devices and accessories that render them lawful for use and registration for use on public highways under State and local laws; (2) do not otherwise participate or assist in making the vehicles lawful for operation on public roads (as by furnishing certificates of origin or other title documents, unless those documents contain a statement that the vehicles were not manufactured for use on public streets, roads, or highways); (3) do not advertise or promote them as vehicles suitable for use on public roads; (4) do not generally market them through retail dealers in motor vehicles; and (5) affix to the mini-bikes a notice stating in substance that the vehicles were not manufactured for use on public streets, roads, or highways and warning operators against such use.

The facts as you state them indicate that Arctic fulfills all but the first criterion. Your letter is not clear on this point,

but it implies that you furnish lighting equipment that is sufficient even without a manufacturer's title documents, to render your mini-bikes registerable in some States. Our position is that a manufacturer who equips his vehicle in such a manner that it is registerable for use on the public roads is a "manufacturer," not withstanding his fulfillment of the remaining criteria, and must comply with all applicable regulations including provision of lighting equipment meeting Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, appropriate certification, and motorcycle consumer information.

ID: aiam2928

Dear Mr. Ashbrook: This responds to your December 19, 1978, letter asking whether it i required that school buses be built transport a minimum of 9 passengers.; As you suggest in your letter, there is no requirement that schoo buses be built to transport a minimum of 9 passengers. The school bus safety regulations issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration require the compliance of those vehicles used to transport more than 10 children to or from school and related events. Vehicles with smaller passenger capacities may also transport children to and from school and need not comply with the school bus safety standards.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2929

Dear Mr. Ashbrook: This responds to your December 19, 1978, letter asking whether it i required that school buses be built transport a minimum of 9 passengers.; As you suggest in your letter, there is no requirement that schoo buses be built to transport a minimum of 9 passengers. The school bus safety regulations issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration require the compliance of those vehicles used to transport more than 10 children to or from school and related events. Vehicles with smaller passenger capacities may also transport children to and from school and need not comply with the school bus safety standards.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: nht90-2.87

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/15/90

FROM: NORMAN B. SCOTT, JR.,-- SNUG SEAT, INC.

TO: ERIKA T. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 8-15-90 TO N. B. SCOTT, JR., FROM P. J. RICE; (A36; STD. 213); ALSO ATTACHED--PHOTOGRAPH (OMITTED)

TEXT:

During a meeting held at NHTSA offices on June 13, 1990, 1 presented a new product being introduced to the market in the next 60 days which will transport "Low Birth Weight" (LBW) infants in a supine or prone position.

This "LBW" car bed is to be called the Mini-Swinger and will be represented as appropriate for infants no longer than twenty (20) inches and no more than eight to ten (8-10) pounds in weight. The Mini-Swinger was developed as a safer means of transporta tion for the "LBW" population of infants that do not have the skeletal/muscular structure required for safe transportation in the standard rear facing six (6) month old car seats. The Mini-Swinger is protected by patent number 4,113,306 issued to Mr. vo n Wimmersperg and owned by the West German firm, Romer-Britax.

As FMVSS 213 does not deal directly with infants of this size we would like an opinion on the following:

In order to certify to FMVSS 213 we are required to place the six (6) month old seventeen (17) pound dummy in the Mini-Swinger. The six (6) month old dummy's torso fits in the Mini-Swinger; however, the legs do not. A dynamic crash test showed the dumm y staying in the shell and the shell maintaining its integrity.

Given that FMVSS 213 does not address the comfort of the occupant of a car seat, we need to know if you accept our testing as adequate relative to the present standard.

On July 8, 1988, you wrote a six (6) page letter to Donald Friedman, Liability Research, Inc., relative to a similar issue. During review of this letter, it seems evident to me the testing we have done is an acceptable test for compliance to FMVSS 213.

Would you please review our request and let me know your thoughts at the earliest convenience?

ID: aiam3487

Dear Mr. Knoedler: This responds to your letter concerning the application of Standard No 213, *Child Restraint Systems*, to a booster seat that uses a vehicle lap belt or lap/shoulder belt to restrain a child weighing 20 or more pounds. The following discussion answers your questions concerning the application of specific sections of the standard to a booster seat.; Section 4 of the standard defines a 'child restraint system' as 'an device, except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh not more than 50 pounds.' Since the booster seat you described would be used to seat a child weighing less than 50 pounds in a vehicle, it is a child restraint system and thus must meet the requirements of the standard. The vehicle lap belt (Type I belt) or lap/shoulder belt (Type II belt) used with the system are specifically excluded by the definition of child restraint system and thus are not covered by the requirements of the standard.; You said that the booster seat would have no sides, back or fixed o movable surface directly in front of the child and asked how the standard would apply to such a design. The standard does not require a child restraint to have a back, sides or fixed or movable surface in front of the child. If such surfaces are provided, however, they must comply with the applicable requirements of sections 5.2.2, 5.2.3, and 5.2.4.; Each child restraint is required to meet the minimum head suppor surface requirements of S5.2.1. Section 5.2.1.2, however, exempts forward-facing child restraint (sic) from the minimum head support surface requirement if, 'the target point on either side of the dummy's head is below a horizontal plane tangent to the top of the standard seat assembly when the dummy is positioned in the system and the system is installed on the assembly in accordance with S6.1.2.' Thus, unless your design is within the exception of S5.2.1.2, it would have to comply with the minimum head support requirements of S5.2.1.1. Any head support surface would also have to comply with the applicable requirements of S5.2.3. and S5.2.4.; You asked about the application of S5.4.3.2 to a booster seat. Sectio 5.4.3.2 provides that:; >>>Each belt *that is a part of a child restraint system* and that i designed to restrain a child using the system and to attach the system to the vehicle shall, when tested in accordance with S6.1, impose no loads on the child that result from the mass of the system or the mass of the seat back of the standard seat assembly specified in S7.3. (Emphasis added.); <<>>(c) In the case of each seating system recommended for children ove 20 pounds, crotch restraint in the form of:; (i) a crotch strap connectable to the lap belt or other device used t restrain the lower torso, or; (ii) a fixed or movable surface that complies with S5.2.2.1(c).<<< The purpose of subsection (c) is to require a belt or surface desig that will prevent the child from submarining under the lap belt (i.e., sliding down and forward under the belt). Thus, if a crotch belt is not provided, the surface of the restraint must be designed to prevent submarining and comply with S5.2.2.1(c). For example, the seating surface of the restrain could be designed to prevent submarining.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel