ID: 12581.wkm

Mr. Stan R. Gornick, P. Eng.
Manager Engineering Quality
Western Star Trucks
2076 Enterprise Way
Kelowna, British Columbia
Canada V1Y6H8

Dear Mr. Gornick:

This responds to your telephone conversation with Walter Myers of my staff on October 10, 1996, and your letter of October 11, 1996, addressed to Mr. Myers. You asked whether emergency doors on sleepers manufactured by your company for installation on the back of truck cabs must comply with Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door locks and door retention components. The answer is no.

You stated in your letter that your company offers a sleeper that can be mounted on the back of a truck cab. Access to the sleeper is provided through an opening in the back wall of the cab and the front wall of the sleeper. An emergency door 20.25 inches wide and 28 inches high may be installed as an option on the passenger side of the sleeper. Although the interior opening is the primary access, the emergency door provides a means of both ingress and egress to the sleeper from outside the cab. There are no seating accommodations in the sleeper, only a bed. The bed is equipped with 2 restraint straps to hold an occupant in place if the vehicle were to suddenly stop or to roll over. Nothing is provided, however, for anyone sitting on the edge of or at the back of the bed.

As you correctly pointed out in your letter, paragraph S4 of FMVSS No. 206 provides that "[c]omponents on any side door leading directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations" must comply with the

requirements of the standard. The key words here are "directly" and "one or more seating accommodations."

On July 28, 1972 this office issued a letter to Mr. J. Donald Waldman of Resources Applications, Designs & Control, Inc. (copy attached), in which we stated in response to a question similar to yours that even though the sleeper is a passenger compartment, it is a separate unit with no seating accommodations. Thus, FMVSS No. 206 would not apply. However, we went on to say that:

[I]f the sleeper berth equipment is installed in such a way that it is contiguous to the truck cab and can be entered by the driver from within the cab, then any side doors on the sleeper berth equipment would be side doors leading into a passenger compartment (the cab) containing seating accommodations and they would have to meet the requirements of the Standard.

This language could be interpreted to say that if there is any means at all of ingress or egress through the sleeper door into the cab, even if one must crawl through the sleeper compartment and over the bed to get into the cab, then the door must comply with FMVSS No. 206. We think that such an interpretation would be inconsistent with the plain language of the standard. Accordingly, in a letter to Mr. Jiro Doi of Mitsubishi Motors America, Inc., dated April 26, 1996 (copy enclosed), we stated that a back door "that leads directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations" means:

[A] door through which vehicle occupants enter from outside the vehicle directly into a vehicle compartment in which occupant seats are located, or exit the vehicle directly from a compartment in which they have been seated to the outside of the vehicle.

Thus, doors "leading directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations" means just that, and does not include a compartment through which or over which a person must crawl or climb to reach a compartment containing seating accommodations. Accordingly, the small emergency door leading into or out of your sleeper compartment does not lead directly into a compartment containing seating accommodations, and is therefore not

required to comply with the requirements of FMVSS No. 206. Any interpretation to the contrary that is stated or may be inferred in the Waldman letter is hereby rescinded.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:206

d:11/18/96

ID: bombardier.ztv

Mr. William K. Cooper. P.E.
Vice President
Engineering and System Assurance
Bombardier Transportation (Holdings) USA Inc.
1501 Lebanon Church Road
Pittsburgh, PA 15236-1491

Dear Mr. Cooper:

This is in reply to your letter of January 13, 2003, requesting an interpretation as to whether the Guided Light Transit (GLT) that Bombardier is preparing to market is a "motor vehicle." You stated that the GLT "is similar in appearance and function to a European street tram, but runs on rubber tires and is guided during street operation by a single rail set into the roadway." You further stated "Propulsion is electric via an overhead catenary system." You argued that the GLT is not a "motor vehicle," "owing to its primary operation in a guided mode where the operator is not required to steer."

You provided additional information in a CD-ROM that you left with us after meeting with Taylor Vinson of this Office, and other agency representatives, on December 10, 2002. We have downloaded this information and it, with your letter, forms the basis for our response.

The information indicates that the rubber-tired GLT is intended to bridge the gap between articulated buses and steel-wheeled trams. The GLT is a vehicle consisting of three passenger-carrying units, and contains 41 designated seating positions. The overall length of the GLT is 24.5 m and its "empty weight" is 25,000 kgs. In the GLTs "Maintenance/Failure Management Mode," the operator "provides steering, traction and braking for limited failure management and non-revenue service maneuvers." We understood from our meeting that "non-revenue service maneuvers" refers to the driving of the GLT, under its own power, between the guide rail and the structure where it is housed. In going to and from the guide rail, the GLT does not carry passengers.

You have also presented information indicating that the GLT complies, or will comply, with all but one of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) that would apply to it as a "bus" with a GVWR more than 4,536 kg. were the GLT determined to be a "motor vehicle."The one exception is FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, where "Discussion required with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA") is noted (in our view, the GLT would comply with FMVSS No. 208 were the operator provided with, at a minimum, a Type 1 seat belt assembly (a lap belt for pelvic restraint) that complies with the specifications of S4.4.2.2 of FMVSS No. 208, referenced by the primary requirement for a bus with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds, S4.4.3.1.).

Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 Motor Vehicle Safety, a "motor vehicle" is "a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line." Under a literal application of this definition, the GLT would be a "motor vehicle" because it is manufactured primarily for use on the public streets and it is not operated exclusively on a rail line.

Nevertheless, we interpret the definition to exclude vehicles operated on a rail line even if the vehicles are rubber-tired, instead of steel-wheeled, and if the rail line is part of a public road. Importantly, we observe that the GLT is "operated exclusively on a rail line" at all times that it is carrying passengers other than a driver; i.e., when the safety of the passengers on the public roadways would be the paramount concern of this agency. At such times, it is electrically powered by an overhead catenary, consistent with other public transit vehicles such as trams and trolleys that are operated exclusively on rails. We further note that the GLT exceeds in length articulated (two-unit) buses typically regulated by this agency and due to its GVWR, is excused from compliance with some FMVSS that apply to buses. Therefore, we have concluded that the GLT is not a "motor vehicle."

Even if we decided that the GLT were a motor vehicle, there would be public policy reasons as well for NHTSA not to regulate it. Bombardiers submission also indicates that the GLT complies or will comply with such safety regulations of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) as may apply to it (49 CFR Part 665). We have, on two occasions, relinquished our jurisdiction over "motor vehicles" where it appeared they were more appropriately regulated by another Federal agency. Initially, we considered mobile homes to be "motor vehicles" because they used the public roads in traveling from the place of manufacture to one or more home sites during their life, requiring them to be equipped in compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that applied to "trailers." We found it more appropriate for mobile homes to be regulated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The second situation involved motorized bicycles. We distinguished those that were powered 100 percent of the time by a motor from those where the power source was primarily muscular and the motor operated intermittently as an assist, such as in climbing hills. We found it more appropriate that the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) regulate power-assist bicycles. Because the GLT is not a transit vehicle of the type usually regulated by this agency, it is more appropriate for FTA to regulate it than it would be for NHTSA to do so.

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:571
d.5/15/03

ID: Classic_SoftTrim_cmc

Dwight Forrister, President & CEO
Classic Soft Trim, Inc.
1212 East Anderson Lane
Austin, TX 78752

Dear Mr. Forrister:

This responds to your inquiry as to whether your company, which re-upholsters vehicle seats, is an alterer for the purposes of Federal motor vehicle regulations. Your letter also inquired as to the certification responsibilities of an alterer. As explained below, by removing vehicle seats from a certified vehicle prior to the first retail sale of a vehicle for the purpose of re-upholstering, your company is an alterer and is subject to the applicable certification responsibilities.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq. to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568, each manufacturer is responsible for "self-certifying" that its vehicles meet all applicable safety standards and labeling its products to reflect such certification.

Your letter stated that your company, Classic Soft Trim Inc., re-upholsters vehicle seats with a leather-trimmed interior. Your letter explained that your company removes seats originally installed in a certified vehicle, replaces the seats upholstery, and then places the seats back into the vehicle. Your letter further stated that this work is typically done for a motor vehicle dealer. Based on this process, you asked four questions regarding the responsibilities of your company under the Federal regulations. Each question is addressed below.

1) "Since a comprehensive list is not provided, would the replacement of seat upholstery be considered a readily attachable component?"

49 CFR 567.7 and 568.8 establish certification requirements for alterers. They are not applicable to a person who removes, substitutes, or adds readily attachable components such as "mirrors or tire and rim assemblies." However, the agency has stated in the past that the list of readily attachable components contained in these sections is not comprehensive. The agency has noted that whether a modification involves "readily attachable components" depends on the degree of difficulty in attaching a component. The agency will look to the intricacy of installation and the need for special expertise to perform the alteration. Absent extraordinary ease of installation, the agency would not consider an alteration to involve a readily attachable component. (See Letter to Mr. Terry Rowe; March 7, 1991; copy enclosed.)

The re-upholstering process described in your letter involves the removal and re-installation of a vehicle seat, which cannot be accomplished with "extraordinary ease." Therefore, the leather upholstery you install would not be considered a "readily attachable component." Further, we previously determined in an August 29, 1999, letter to Mr. Brian Goodman that a company re-upholstering vehicle seats was an alterer for purposes of 568.8 (copy enclosed).

2) "Would the replacement of upholstery invalidate any vehicles stated weight rating?"

As required under 568.8, if the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of a vehicle as altered is different from that shown on the original certification label, the alterer must provide the modified value. However, it is the alterers responsibility to determine if any alteration would affect a vehicles weight rating. Although we do not see any reason why a mere re-upholstering would affect the GVWR, the agency is unable to make that determination.

3) "If a company adds or replaces components to a certified vehicle that are readily attachable and does not change the vehicle weight rating, would they be considered an Alterer?"

Section 567.6 states, in part, that a person who alters a vehicle:

[O]nly by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tires and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, in such a manner that the vehicles stated weight ratings are still valid, need not affix a label to the vehicle, but shall allow a manufacturer's label that conforms to the requirements of this part to remain affixed to the vehicle.

Accordingly, a person performing these types of alterations would not be considered an alterer for the purposes of Part 567 and Part 568.

4) "If replacement upholstery is not a readily attachable component yet does not change a vehicles weight rating, how should the requirements of [] 567.7 and 568.8 be applied?"

As explained above, 567.7 and 568.8 apply to a person who alters a vehicle that has previously been certified, other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components, or who alters a vehicle in such a manner that its stated weight ratings are no longer valid, before the first retail sale. Therefore, the replacement of upholstery as described in your letter would subject your company to the certification and certification label requirements in 567.7 and 568.8.

As an alterer, your company would be responsible for determining which FMVSS are impacted by the alteration and then certifying that a vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable FMVSS affected by the alteration. As recognized in your letter, removal of a vehicle seat during the upholstering process may affect advanced air bag technologies installed in a vehicle seat for purposes of compliance with FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection. Your company would be required to determine if your actions would affect that vehicles compliance with FMVSS No. 208 as well as all other applicable standards.

If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref..208#567#568
8/27/04

ID: Label_legibility001589

Mr. Randy Kiser
Evenflo Company, Inc.
707 Crossroads Court
Vandalia, OH 45377

Dear Mr. Kiser:

This responds to your February 5, 2004, letter following up on recent correspondence between you and this office concerning the labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child restraint systems.

Your earlier letter asked about the requirement in S5.5.1 and elsewhere in FMVSS No. 213 that child restraints be "permanently labeled" with certain information. You asked if we would consider the permanency requirement met if attempting to remove the label caused certain results, such as tearing of the label. We replied that, if the label met the described criteria and remained legible for the life of the restraint, we would consider it permanently attached.

In your follow up letter, you ask about a procedure you use to determine the legibility of the labeling. You state that the procedure, which you say was suggested by Transport Canada, involves applying three different cleaning solutions in sequence to the label with a piece of cheesecloth. After each solution is applied, you assess the legibility of the label and deem the wording legible if it is "legible to an observer having corrected visual acuity of 20/40 (Snellen ratio) at a distance of 305 mm." You state that this language is used in FMVSS No. 116, "Brake fluids," regarding legibility of labeling. You wish to know if such a procedure is acceptable for evaluating legibility under FMVSS No. 213.

Under 49 U.S.C. 30112, persons are prohibited from manufacturing or selling any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that does not comply with all applicable FMVSSs. However, this prohibition does not apply to a person who had no reason to know, despite exercising reasonable care, that the vehicle or item of equipment does not comply (49 U.S.C. 30112(b)). In our opinion, using the procedure you describe would be an exercise of reasonable care in making your certification. We assume that the procedure would expose the labeling to cleaning solutions representative of those used in the U.S.

If you have any further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:213
d.5/11/04

ID: 22968.ztv.wpd

Mr. Hugo De Roo
Area Export Manager
Van Hool N.V.
Bernard Van Hoolstraat 58
B-2500 Lier Koningshoolkt
Belgium

Dear Mr. De Roo:

This is in reply to the letter that you and Mr. Van Hool wrote on March 20, 2003, asking for an interpretation with respect to required markings on lenses of certain rear lamp clusters on Van Hool buses. You asked that we address both original and replacement lenses. You believed that Van Hool may have failed to comply with our regulations.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108 (49 CFR 571.108), Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, does not require lenses of any rear lamp, whether original or replacement, to be marked with the SAE identification code or any other markings (although the standard permits replacement equipment to be marked with the DOT symbol as a certification of compliance). Therefore, the fact that Van Hool lenses may not be marked is not a failure to comply with a FMVSS that would require the company to notify owners and to remedy a noncompliance.

We understand that owners and users of Van Hool buses may also be subject to the lighting equipment regulations of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) of the Department of Transportation, 49 CFR Part 393 (2002). These regulations state that any required reflector on a motor vehicle subject to FMCSA regulations must comply with FMVSS No. 108, and be marked with the manufacturers name or trade name and the letters "SAE-A." See Sections 393.26(b) and (c). As for the marking of lamps, under Section 393.25(d), all lamps "required to conform to the requirements of the SAE standards" are to be marked with SAE designations and other information. However, since March 7, 1990, lamps are no longer required to conform to SAE requirements but must meet FMVSS No. 108 instead. See footnote (b)(2) to Section 393.24(c) (which also specifies that in a conflict between an SAE standard and a FMVSS, the latter shall prevail). Accordingly, with the exception of reflectors as noted, Section 393 has not required lighting equipment to be marked on any vehicles manufactured since March 7, 1990.

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.5/29/03

ID: 1982-1.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/13/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of October 26, 1981, requesting several interpretations of the requirements of Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact. The answer to each of your questions is discussed below.

Your first question concerned section 3.3 of the standard, which among other things, requires that an "interior compartment door assembly located in . . . a side panel adjacent to a designated seating position . . ." must remain closed when tested under certain conditions. You stated your belief that the requirement only applies to interior compartment doors located within the head impact area, defined in Part 571.3 of Title 49. You asked if the area adjacent to a designated seating position is to be determined by projecting laterally from the head impact area for a designated seating position to the side panel next to it.

The impact protection requirement for interior compartment doors was added to the standard on October 25, 1968 (33 FR 15794). As explained in that notice, a copy of which is enclosed, the agency specifically denied requests to limit the interior compartment door requirement to doors located in the head impact area. The requirement is designed to provide protection to the head and other portions of an occupant's body that can be thrown against an interior compartment door opened by inertial forces in a crash. To accomplish the purpose of the standard, any interior compartment door, defined in Part 571.3 of Title 49, that is located in a side panel and is next to a designated seating position is covered by the requirements of section 3.3 of the standard.

You also asked how the term "instrument panel" is defined for the purposes of section 3.3 of the standard. You are correct that the term refers to the panel below the windshield which is used to mount the speedometer, other gauges, etc. For the reasons discussed in response to your first question concerning S3.3, any interior compartment door on the instrument panel is covered by the requirements of section 3.3, not just those located in the head impact area.

You also asked about the requirements of section 3.3.1 of the standard. You state that section 3.3.1 allows the use of either option (b) or (c) to show compliance. Your statement is not correct. Section 3.3 of the standard requires more than compliance with either option (b) or (c) of section 3.3.1. Section 3.3 requires interior compartment doors to remain closed when "tested in accordance with either S3.3.1(a) and S3.3.1(b) or S3.3.1(a) and S3.3.1(c)."

You also state that you interpret option (c) of section 3.3.1 to be a horizontal inertial load of 30g in a longitudinal direction which would simulate a forward 30 mile per hour flat barrier impact. Your interpretation is correct. Section 3.3.1(c) provides that an interior compartment door latch must be subject to "a horizontal inertia load of 30g in a longitudinal direction in accordance with the procedures described in section 5 of SAE Recommended Practice J839b, 'Passenger Car Side Door Latch Systems,' or an approved equivalent." The purpose of the requirement is to impose loads similar to the loads experienced by a door latch tested in the 30 mile per hour forward barrier crash required by section 3.3.1(b) of the standard.

You further state that the loading applied in accordance with section 3.3.1(c) should be a forward deceleration inertia loading. Your interpretation is not correct. To ensure that the requirements of sections 3.3.1(b) and 3.3.1(c) are equivalent in stringency, the agency believes that the 30g inertia load requirement of section 3.3.1(c) must take into account the distortion and deformation that would occur in a 30 mile per hour barrier impact. Therefore, the 30g inertia load must be applied in both the forward and rearward direction. Likewise, the 10g inertia load requirement of section 3.3.1(a) must be applied in both the inboard and outboard direction.

Your final question concerned the requirements of section 3.5.1 of the standard, which specifies that armrests must comply with at least one of three options. Section 3.5.1(c) specifies that one option is providing an armrest which has "Along not less than 2 continuous inches of its length . . . when measured vertically in side elevation. . . at least 2 inches of coverage within the pelvic impact area." You are correct that an armrest complying with section S3.5.1(c) can be made of any material, as long as it meets the dimensional requirements set by that section.

If you have further questions, please let me know.

ENC.

BLUE BIRD

BODY COMPANY

October 26, 1981

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation

Reference: FMVSS 201 Occupant Protection in Interior Impact Passenger Car

FMVSS 201, Section 3.3, Interior Compartment Door, states, "a compartment door located in . . . side panel adjacent to a designated seating position . . . ". Blue Bird Body Company interprets this phrase to be an area projected laterally to the side panel from the Head Impact Area as defined by Part 571 Subpart A - Definitions.

This interpretation is based on the concept that FMVSS 201, Section 3.3 is intended to prevent occupant head contact with an inertia opened compartment door during a crash. The Head Impact Area defines the trajectory of the occupant head during such a crash, and thus would define the area of potential head to compartment door contact. Compartment doors within this projected area should comply with Section 3.3, while those outside of this area should be exempt. This is also consistent with the American Heritage Dictory definition of adjacent as being next to; or adjoining. This definition would exempt panels located above the door or upper window header.

Blue Bird Body Company also defined "instrument panel" as referenced in Section 3.3, to be the panel below the windshield that normally is used to mount gages, speedometers, etc, to monitor vehicle functions and that is within the Head Impact Area as defined in Subpart A - Definitions.

Section 3.3.1, Demonstration Procedures, allows either option (b) or (c) to show compliance. Blue Bird Body Company interprets option (c) to a horizontal inertia load of 30g in a longitudinal direction which would simulate a forward 30 miles per hour flat barrier impact, as required by option (b). This would be a forward deceleration inertia loading applied in accordance to Section 5 of the SAE Recommended Practice J839b.

Under Armrest, Section 3.5.1, General, option (c) specifies "not less than two continuous inches of its length, the armrest shall, when measured vertically in side elevation, provide at least 2 inches of coverage within the pelvic impact area". Blue Bird Body Company interprets this to allow any material, including steel tube, aluminum or steel panel, that fulfills the dimensional requirements.

We respectfully request your confirmation of our interpretation to the above sections of FMVSS 201. An early reply would be apprediated.

Thank you.

Thomas D. Turner Manager Engineering Services

ID: 1985-01.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/01/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Ernest Farmer Tennessee State Department of Education

TEXT:

Mr. Ernest Farmer Director, Pupil Transportation Tennessee State Department of Education Office of Commissioner Cordell Hull Building Nashville, Tennessee 37219-5335

Dear Mr. Farmer:

This responds to your letter to me regarding our motor vehicle safety standards for school buses. You asked several questions about Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, and Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity. In a telephone conversation you had on February 8, 1985, with Ms. Hom of my staff, you also asked about the safety standards that apply to vans carrying 10 or less persons that are used to transport school children.

To begin, I would like to explain that the motor vehicle safety standards issued by our agency apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. As you know, in 1974, Congress expressly directed us to issue standards on specific aspects on school bus safety. The standards we issued became effective April 1, 1977, and apply to each school bus manufactured on or after that date. A manufacturer or dealer who sells a new bus to a school must sell a bus that complies with the motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses.

Under our regulations, a "bus" is defined as a motor vehicle designed for carrying 11 or more persons. "School bus" is defined as a bus that is sold for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events (excluding buses sold as common carriers in urban transportation). A van type vehicle, constructed on a truck chassis, carrying 10 persons or less is classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV). New MPV's sold to schools need not meet the school bus safety standards, since these vehicles are not buses. However, there are many motor vehicle safety standards applicable to MPV's. New MPV's must be certified by their manufacturers as complying with these safety standards. I have enclosed a list of the motor vehicle safety standards applicable to MPV's, as you requested.

The first question in your letter asked whether we require Type A vehicles which carry 15 to 22 passengers to comply with the provisions of Standards Nos. 222 and 301. over the telephone, you explained that these vehicles are school buses with gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less.

The answer to this question is yes. Standard No. 222 applies to all school buses. However, the requirements of the standard vary depending on the GVWR of the bus. Standard No. 301 applies to all school buses that use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F. A new school bus must be certified as complying with the applicable requirements of theses safety standards.

The first part to your second question asked, "Does NHTSA consider a 14 crash barrier installed in front of standard 39" bench seats an the right side of the aisle in these vehicles to be in compliance with FMVSS 222?"

The answer to this question is that there is no violation of Standard No. 222's restraining barrier requirements. This is because the restraining barrier requirements do not apply to school buses of 10,000 pounds or less GVWR. Paragraph S5(b) of the standard lists the requirements that apply to these smaller school buses, and the restraining barrier requirements found in paragraph S5.2 are not listed in S5(b). If a manufacturer voluntarily chooses to install a restraining barrier in these buses, there is no violation of Standard No. 222 if the barrier is not as wide as the designated seating positions behind it.

The second part of this question asked, "Would seat belts on the front row of seats void the crash barrier requirement in this standard for Type A vehicles? (Wa are aware that NHTSA requires seat belts on all Type A vehicles)"

The answer to this question is similar to that given above. Restraining barriers on school buses with GVWR's of 10,000 pounds or less are not required by Standard No. 222. Since these smaller school buses are equipped with seat belts, the standard does not regulate seat spacing in these vehicles.

The third part of this question asked, Would the location of the gas tank between frame members also void the requirement in FMVSS 301 for a protective barrier?"

The answer is that Standard No. 301 sets performance requirements that each school bus must meet; it does not require specific designs, such as a protective barrier. A manufacturer can position its gas tank at any location as long as it can meet the performance requirements of the standard at that location.

Your third question asked, "Does NHTSA require the installation of a metal shield between the exhaust system and the gas tank when such locations are 12 or less from each other? (Note: We have some Type A vehicles with variations of 6 to 8 inches that supposedly have NHTSA approval.)"

Neither Standard No. 301 nor any of the agency's other standards set any requirements concerning the installation of metal shields between the exhaust system and the gas tank.

If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

December 3, 1984

Mr. Frank A. Berndt, Chief Counsel NHTSA NOA-30 U. S. Department of Transportation Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Please respond to the following questions at your earliest convenience:

1. Does NHTSA require Type A vehicles in a capacity range of 15-22 passengers to comply with the provisions of FMVSS 222 and 301?

2. If so, does NHTSA consider.

a. A 14" crash barrier installed in front of standard 39" bench seats on the right side of the aisle in these vehicles to be in compliance with FMVSS 222 requirements?

b. Would seat belts on the front row of seats void the crash barrier requirements in this standard for this type vehicle? (Note: We are aware that NHTSA requires seat belts on all Type A vehicles.)

c. Would the location of the gas tank between frame members also void the requirement in FMVSS 301 for a protective barrier?

3. Does NHTSA require the installation of a metal shield between the exhaust system and the gas tank when such locations are 12" or less from each other? (Note: We have some Type A vehicles with variations of 6-8" that supposedly have NHTSA approval.)

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely yours,

Ernest Farmer, Director Pupil Transportation

EE:if Enclosure cc: Lt. Leonard Murray

ID: nht74-1.41

DATE: 04/01/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter dated December 6, 1973, requesting clarification of the definition of "school bus" as it appears in NHTSA regulations. You point out that school bus is defined for purposes of the Motor Vehicle Safety Standards in 49 CFR 571.3 to mean "a bus designed primarily to carry children to and from school . . .", but is defined differently in Highway Safety Standard No. 17 (23 CFR 204.4), i.e., "any motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, used to carry more than 15 pupils to and from school". You also refer to our interpretation regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217 which states that the term "school bus" as defined in 49 CFR @ 571.3 includes buses designed as school buses but which are not intended or sold to transport children to and from school. You state that as a result it is unclear whether buses designed but not used as school buses, including church and civic group buses, must be equipped with warning lamps under S4.1.4 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. In this regard, you state that you require purchasers to indicate on their purchase order whether the bus will be used primarily to transport children to and from school, and ask whether this is an acceptable form for a manufacturer to use to determine whether a vehicle will be used as a school bus.

We do not interpret Standard No. 108 to require warning lights on buses that are not intended to be used to transport school children. Our interpretation regarding Standard No. 217, exempting school bus-type buses from the emergency exit requirements of that standard (which applies as well to buses manufactured by Blue Bird), was based on what we believed at that time was a special need to exempt such buses from the requirements of that standard. We are aware of the inconsistency in the application of the definition of "school bus" in Standards Nos. 108 and 217 and we intend to modify these requirements so that they will be applied consistently.

The difference between the definition of B school bus in the Highway Safety Act and in the Motor Vehicle Safety Standards under the Vehicle Safety Act is that the latter statute and the requirements issued thereunder apply to the manufacturing process. The requirements issued under the Highway Safety Act apply more directly to school bus use.

Whether a particular bus is a school bus cannot be ascertained merely by the representation of the purchaser. The manufacturer should base his decision as well on the objective characteristics of the vehicle, so that he can be reasonably certain that the purchaser's representations are bona fide.

SINCERELY,

December 6, 1973

Richard Oyson Assistant Chief Counsel U.S. Dept. of Transportation NHTSA

REFERENCE: N40-30 (MPP) to Mr. James Tydings, September 25, 1973 N40 30 (MPP) to Mr. G. R. Seward, October 31, 1973

In phone conversations with Mr. Pescoe on November 29 and 30, 1973, we learned of the reference letters which deal with the definition of the term "School Bus" as used in FMVSS 217 Bus Window Retention and Release, S 5.2. Mr. Pescoe has sent us copies of these letters.

In your letter to Mr. Tyiings you say:

School bus is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 to mean,

"a bus designed primarily to carry children to and from school. . .

We are of the opinion that buses which share the same design as buses that clearly fall within the definition of "school bus" are school buses under Standard No. 217, and are therefore exempt from the emergency exit provisions of the standard. No modification of the standard is accordingly called for."

In this explanation, you have called attention to the word "designed" in the definition. Highway Safety Program Standard 17, however, uses a different terminology in defining a school bus. In Paragraph III, Definitions, it says:

"Type I school vehicle" means any motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, used to carry more than 16 pupils to and from school. . ." (Illegible Word) the definitions of "school bus" in 49 CFR 571.3 and "Type I (Illegible Word) vehicle" in Highway Safety Standard 17, it is unclear whether it is the way a vehicle is designed or used which determines if it is a school bus or not. We believe that NHTSA should clarify its intent regarding this.

We are concerned with these specific questions:

1. Are all buses which are designed as school buses according to your interpretation in the reference letters required to have warning lamps under FMVSS 108 S 4.1.4? This would include church buses, civic group buses, etc. We believe that such a ruling would defeat the entire purpose of Highway Safety Program No. 17 which attempts to uniquely identify school buses. Accordingly we suggest that only buses used primarily to carry children to and from school be equipped with warning lamps. To tell us when we may delete warning lamps from a bus, we have been asking purchasers or distributors (who sometimes buy stock vehicles) to sign a statement on the purchase order indicating the intended use of the vehicle. See copy of blank purchase order enclosed. Does NHTSA consider this to be an acceptable method of determining if a vehicle is a school bus for the purposes of FMVSS 108 and Highway Safety Standard No. 17?

In closing we would like to indicate our agreement with the NHTSA's interpretation of "school bus" for the purpose of FMVSS 217 which exempts from the emergency exit provisions of that standard, buses which share the same design as those which meet the 49 CFR 571.3 definition but may used for purposes other than the (Illegible Word) of school children. Are the interpretations in the reference (Illegible Word) to Thomas Built Buses, Inc. and Sheller-Globe Corp. legally binding and do they also apply to Blue Bird Body Company?

Thank you for your reply and your continued help in these matters.

W. G. Milby Project Engineer

cc: DAVE PHELPS; JIM MOORMAN

NAME OF AGENCY: Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. Routine

TYPE OF MESSAGE: SINGLE

TELEGRAPHIC MESSAGE

SHELLER-GLOBE CORPORATION LIMA, OHIO

IN RESPONSE TO YOUR TELEGRAM OF DECEMBER 6 NHTSA WOULD CONSIDER THE USE OF A ROOF EMERGENCY EXIT AS APPROPRIATE TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS TO S5.2.1 OF STANDARD NO. 217 IF IT WERE IMPRACTICABLE TO USE A REAR EXIT BECAUSE, AS YOU STATE, RETOOLING AN EXISTING CONFIGURATION WOULD BE EXCESSIVELY EXPENSIVE.

RICHARD B. DYSON ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL, N40-30

NAME AND TITLE OF ORIGINATOR: Michael P. Peskoe, Attorney DATE AND TIME PREPARED: Dec. 12, 1973

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION U.S. COAST GUARD TELECOMMUNICATIONS CENTER

12/06/73

LAWRENCE SCHNEIDER, CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON D C 20590 SHELLER-GLOBE CORPORATION PLANS TO MODIFY EXISTING MOTOR HOME INTO A BUS. MOTOR HOME CONFIGURATION CONTAINS LARGE PICTURE WINDOW IN REAR. COSTS OF TOOLING TO ADD EMERGENCY EXIT EXCESSIVE. ALTERNATE SCHEME IS TO INSTALL EMERGENCY EXIT IN ROOF PERMITTED BY MVSS-217 PARAGRAPH S.5.2.1.

WILL EXIST IN ROOF BE ACCEPTABLE UNDER THESE CONDITIONS?

DUE TO URGENCY, REPLY REQUESTED 12-7-73. R M PREMO, SHELLER-GLOBE CORP, VEHICLE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT CENP

ID: nht69-2.9

DATE: 03/27/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: Gold Cross Ambulance Service Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 18, 1969, to Dr. William Haddon, Jr., requesting information on Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) applicable to ambulances.

If the ambulance is built on a passenger car chassis, all of the FMVSS applicable to passenger cars would apply. However, if the ambulance is built on a truck chassis, the FMVSS applicable to multi-purpose passenger vehicles would apply. There have been no special exceptions granted for ambulances.

Enclosed for your information and guidance are copies of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 and the FMVSS established thereunder.

ID: nht91-7.19

DATE: November 26, 1991

FROM: H. Ino -- Manager, Quality Assurance, Diamond Star Motors

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Office of Chief Counsel

TITLE: NHTSA'S VIN Requirements (FMVSS 115)

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/11/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to H. Ino (A39; VSA 108(b)(3); Std. 115)

TEXT:

In a telephone conversation on Friday, Nov. 22nd, Ms. Dorothy Nakama informed Diamond-Star Motors that FMVSS 115 is only applicable to vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States. She also recommended that in order to receive this in writing I must send a written request for an interpretation of FMVSS 115.

Please send an interpretation of FMVSS 115 which addresses to whom this standard is applicable and any exceptions that are applicable. Thank you very much.