ID: 09-003935 217

ID: 11-002613 drn.doc

ID: 07-003334as

ID: 07-007541as

ID: 1984-1.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/07/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nr. Karl-Heinx Faber -- Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Karl-Heinz Faber Vice President, Product Compliance and Service Administration Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. P.O. Box 350 Montvale, New Jersey 07645

This is in response to your September 14, 1983, letter in which you request that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration confirm that the Unimog vehicle produced by Mercedes-Benz is not a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1391(3). The agency stated in a March 9, 1972, letter that a previous version of the Unimog would not be classified as a "motor vehicle."

The principal differences between the 1972 version of the Unimog and the version expected to be sold in the near future are, based on your representations made in a September 8 meeting with agency staff increases in engine horsepower, gross vehicle weight rating, wheelbase, length, width, height, and certain ground clearance specifications. The anticipated sales level for the vehicle is slightly higher than the past level, as well.

It appears that none of these changes would affect the classification of the Unimog under the Safety Act. Therefore, we conclude that the vehicle is still not a "motor vehicle." This conclusion presumes that the Unimogs would still be marketed, as in the past, principally through farm machinery and heavy equipment dealers, and that the vehicle would have affixed in the cab a label stating that the Unimog is not manufactured for highway use.

Sincerely Original signed by Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel cc: Mr. J. Sonosky Hogan and Hartson 815 Connecticut Ave., N.W.

Washington, DC 20006

September 14, 1983

Mr. Frank Berndt 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, DC 20590

Subject: Classification of the Unimog Vehicle

Dear Mr. Berndt:

On March 9, 1972, after a thorough review, NHTSA advised us that the Mercedes-Benz Unimog was not a "motor vehicle" as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1391(3) and therefore was not subject to the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The letter also mentioned that the Agency's decision was subject to future review and reconsideration on the basis of any relevant information that might come to its attention.

On September 8, 1983, a meeting took place at the Agency with Messrs. Wood, Shifflet and Fairchild of your staff, Mr. Sonosky of Hogan & Hartson, counsel to MBNA, and members of my staff present. In this meeting, the planned expansion of the Unimog marketing program and technical changes in the vehicle were discussed in detail. A table showing specifications of the new Unimog models we intend to introduce as well as several brochures showing the intended uses of the vehicles were left with your staff. For your convenience, we enclose a duplicate set of that material. The number of models with only minor differences in GVWR and engine horsepower reflects our aim to provide that best suited equipment for each individual use.

In the discussion, your staff expressed interest in obtaining marketing data which would substantiate the off-highway nature of the vehicle as indicated by actual sales and implement applications. Enclosed please find a list of implements and attachments sold with Unimogs from 1975 to this date, the Unimog sales figure for the same period, and a summary of the Unimog use by business.

Other issues raised by your staff include whether the vehicle will continue to be labeled as in the past and sold through a dealer network related to farm machinery and heavy equipment. This is to re-affirm our intention to maintain both practices in our expanded program.

We trust that the information provided to your staff at the meeting, and the information contained in the enclosed material, are sufficient to enable you to maintain the decision expressed in the Agency's letter of March 9, 1972, for the new generation Unimog models which differ in size from the Unimog 900 but which, like their predecessor, were designed as off-road implement carriers and not intended primarily for use on roads and highways.

Since the initiation of our new marketing program is imminent, we respectfully request your expeditious review of this matter. Should you need any further information, please do not hesitate to contact this office.

Sincerely, Original signed by (?) Enclosure

Implements and attachments sold with Unimogs during Calendar Year 1975 through 1983 by order of sale volume:

QUANTITY IMPLEMENT/ATTACHMENT

150 Snowplow 112 Snowblower/Cutter 80 Backhoe 74 Doser Blade 64 Salt and Sand Spreader 34 Railroad Switcher 32 Front End Loader 24 Three-Point Hitch for Agriculture 23 Broom/Sweeper 23 Mower 18 Crane 24 Winch 11 Digger Derrick/Auger 10 Wood Shredder 9 Western Fire Package 5 Mobil Drill 3 Trencher 2 Man Basket 2 Forklift 2 Cable Plow 2 Dump Bed 1 Tree Spade 1 Sludge Pump 1 Brush Cutter

Comparison Unimog/Attachment Sales (Detail) 1975 - 1983 Ratio Unimog Sales Implement/Attachment Sales Unimog/Attachment 441 697 1 : 1.58

Unimog Use by Business

Federal, State, County and Municipal Departments 39% Contractors 15% Utility and Telephone Companies 11% Airports 10% Railroads 10% Agriculture 7% Others 8% PAGE 37 LEVEL 1 - 12 OF 169 ITEMS

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/08/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bob D. Troxel -- Vice President and General Manager, J.F. Enterprises Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 10/15/73 letter from Richard B. Dyson to David J. Humphreys (RVI Inc.)

TEXT:

Mr. Bob D. Troxel Vice President and General Manager J. F. Enterprises, Inc. Box 583 Wakarusa, Indiana 46573

This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff, asking for a clarification of the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR S571.302). Specifically, your company manufactures innerspring mattresses, some of which are used in motor vehicles. You noted that the mattress covers on those mattresses for use in motor vehicles must comply with the flammability requirements of Standard No. 302, and that you had interpreted the mattress cover to consist only of the covering applied over the finished mattress. Hence, under your interpretation, Standard No. 302 would not apply to the ticking used as the outside of the mattress. However, you were told by several ticking manufacturers that a recent decision by this agency stated that ticking used on mattresses for use in motor vehicles must also satisfy the flammability requirements of the standard. It is correct that the ticking must satisfy Standard No. 302's flammability requirements.

The mattress cover has been interpreted by this agency to include both a covering put over a finished mattress and the permanent mattress ticking since Standard No. 302 became effective. Hence, the information that this was a recent decision by this agency is incorrect. For your information, I have enclosed a 1973 letter to the Recreational Vehicle Institute setting forth this interpretation over ten years ago.

Should you have any other questions about the applicability of Standard No. 302 to your products, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosure - 10/15/73 letter from Richard B. Dyson to David J. Humphreys omitted here.

December 7, 1983

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

Our company is a manufacturer of innerspring mattresses. A small percentage of our production goes to the Recreational Vehicle Industry. Of this portion of our business a portion goes into Motorized Vehicles (Mini Homes, Motor Homes, etc.).

I am told that you may be able to clarify an item pertaining to how these mattresses are affected by the FMVSS 302 Flammibility Standard. We have been informed that the DOC FF 4-72 Standard that all of our mattresses are manufactured under applies and FMVSS 302 applies only to mattress "covers". The term "cover" we understand applies to a covering applied over the finished mattress and not the ticking used as the outside of the mattress.

I have recently been "told" by several manufacturers of "ticking" that a recent decision has been made that the ticking must meet FMVSS 302 when the finished product is used in a Motorized Vehicle.

I am asking your help in clarifying this question of the FMVSS 302 as it applies to an innerspring (or poly) mattress used in a Motorized Recreational Vehicle.

Thank you for your help.

Sincerely,

Bob D. Troxel Vice President and General Manager

BDT:csy

ID: 1984-1.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/01/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Dick Cheney -- House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear Mr. Cheney:

This responds to your recent letter to this agency, seeking comments on a constituent's letter concerning seating on school buses and the use of activity buses. Essentially, Mr. Krisko, your constituent, stated that the seating on school buses presents comfort problems on long distance trips, particularly for high school buses athletes, and asked why schools are not permitted to own "Trailways" type buses for use on these long distance trips. Mr. Krisko noted that Federal Law now permits the use of such buses only if they are leased by the schools or if the bus was manufactured before the comprehensive school bus safety standards became effective in 1977. As is more fully explained below, the answer is that the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), together with the safety standards for school buses (which the Act required this agency to issue) require that buses which are significantly used to transport school children to and from school-related events must be certified as meeting those safety standards. "Trailways" type buses as currently manufactured cannot be certified as doing such, and therefore cannot be so used.

In 1974, Congress passed the School Bus and Motor Vehicle Safety Amendments (Pub. L. 93-492; hereinafter referred to as "the Amendments"). The Amendments added to the Act the following definition of a school bus: "a passenger motor vehicle which is designed to carry more than 10 passengers is addition to the driver, and which...is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools;...(15 U.S.C. 1391(14)). (Emphasis added). Those Amendments also provided that, not later than 15 months after they were enacted, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration had to promulgate minimum performance standards for specified aspects of safety performance. The Amendments specified further that these standards "shall apply to each school bus and item of school bus equipment which is manufactured in or imported into the United States on or after April 1, 1977." (15 U.S.C. 1392(i)(1)(8))

Prior to this legislative action, many school districts had used so-called "activity buses" to transport students to and from extracurricular activities. The floor debates on the Amendments show that Congress was aware of this practice, yet chose to specify a broad definition of school bus, so as to require vehicles used solely for extracurricular activities to meet the same safety standards as those used to transport the children to and from school. This decision was partially based on the fact that 150 children were killed in 1971 in school bus accidents (see 120 Cong. Rec. HB120, daily ed., August 12, 1974). The statistics since the Amendments were passed indicate that Congress' goal of greatly reducing these fatalities has been accomplished by the school bus safety standards promulgated by this agency. In 1981, the last year for which complete statistics are available, there were 10 fatalities in school bus accidents.

The October 26, 1983 resolution passed by the Wyoming Association of Secondary School Principals (WASSP), which was enclosed with MR. Krisko's letter, contains a statement which suggests that the group may not be accurately informed about the origin of the current requirements for school buses.

The WASSP resolved that present administrative definitions be changed to allow schools to own commercial-type buses to transport school children to extracurricular activities. The language in our administratively-adopted for that purpose follows the statutory definition of that term. Without a change by Congress in the statutory definition, the administrative definition must remain as it is.

With respect to the issue of seat spacing, last year this agency amended Standard No. 222 to permit maximum seat spacing of 24 inches instead of teh 21 inches previously specified (48 FR 12384, March 24, 1983). This step could be taken to improve the comfort of those buses without compromising the level of safety afforded the occupants. During that rulemaking action, this agency considered allowing reclining seats similar to those used in commercial-type vehicles, but concluded that reclining seats could not provide the same level of safety protection as is provided by upright seats spaced 24 inches apart. Accordingly, this type of seating was not permitted. I understand Mr. Krisko's concern that such seating would be more comfortable on long trips. I hope that he understands that the agency carefully looked at the available date. In the agency's judgment, the date indicated that these seats would not be as safe if the bus were involved in an accident.

If you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely, Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosure Ms. Carole Walls Congressional Relations Officer National Highway Transportation Safety Administration Department of Transportation Room 10406 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Walls:

I have received the enclosed information from the President of the Wyoming Association of Secondary School Principals.

Mr. Krisko expresses his concern about regulations pertaining to the use of activity buses. He explains the special problems created by the regulations in a state as large as Wyoming, where some of the school trips are as long as 350 miles one way.

Any information you might be able to provide on this matter would be most appreciated.

Thank you very much for your assistance.

Best regards, Dick Cheney Member of Congress Enclosure

The Honorable Richard Cheney Room 4003 Federal Building Casper, WY 82601

Dear Representative Cheney:

The Wyoming Association of Secondary School Principals recently passed a resolution regarding the use of activity buses in our state. Other western states have also come up against similar problems, which can be summarized as follows:

Federal laws specify types of seating which may be used on buses used to transport students, regardless of the activity. The seats must be fixed (non-reclining) and may have a maximum 24" between seats. For normal school bus runs (to and from school) there is little problems; on long distance but also a safety problem. It is our opinion that regular" school buses are not designed for long distance travel, particularly with large high school athletes. Some of our trips are 350 miles, one way. There are two ways around the Bus Standards: "Trailways" type buses may be leased from another owner, or may be purchased by a school district if manufactured prior to 1977, when the standards became effective. The latter option leads to the purchase of older vehicles, possible unsafe. Some school districts lease a bus from a local recreation district, essentially owning the bus since recreation districts often are set up under statute by school boards. This however, is not possible in many communities. Some districts have taken a chance and purchased commercial-type buses, but are open to lawsuits in the event of an accident.

We are in communication with Mr. Ivan Gluckman, Legal Counsel for the National Association of Secondary School Principals, regarding this matter. Accompanying this letter are:

a) A copy of a resolution passed by WASSP, October 26,1983 b) Copies of correspondence with Ivan Gluckman c) Copies of some Federal Memoranda regarding school buses

We would appreciate your help in this matter. Other State Associations are being contacted.

Sincerely, Robert M. Krisko, President Wyoming Association of Secondary School Principals Thermopolis Middle School

Resolution from WASSP Wyoming Association of Secondary School Principals regarding Activity Buses.

Whereas: Students in Western States must travel long distances to participate in school related activities.

and Whereas: Regular school buses are not appropriate for long distance travel in terms of comfort storage of luggage and equipment, or safety

and Whereas: Under the Federal regulations school districts may lease commercial-type buses for activities but not own them

and Whereas: Availability of such leasing is unavailable in many locations

BE IT RESOLVED that the WASSP recommends that present administrative definitions be changed to allow ownership of such vehicles for use on activity trips.

Passed October 26, 1983. Robert M. Krisko, President WASSP

ID: nht88-2.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/29/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Derek Nash -- Artech Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 1/14/76 letter from Richard B. Dyson To Tom Welland

TEXT:

Mr. Derek Nash Artech Corporation 2901 Telestar Court Falls Church, VA 22042

This responds to your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and follows up on the April 1, 1988 telephone conversation with Ms. Hom of my staff in which additional information augmenting your letter was provided. I apologiz e for the delay in responding.

In your letter, you said that you are refurbishing a type of passenger vehicle that has first produced 20 years ago. Your letter raises questions about Federal requirements for persons modifying used vehicles which I will address in the latter part of th is letter and about Federal requirements for the design of the vehicle's chassis.

Before I address your specific questions, I would like to provide some background information on our regulations and safety standards. NHTSA has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed) to issue motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of new vehicles or equipment must certify that their products conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. NHTSA also has the authority to in vestigate safety-related defects in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. If a manufacturer or the agency determines that the manufacturer's product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the product and remedy the defect free of charge.

It is not clear from the information which you have provided us whether the vehicle you are refurbishing would be treated as a new or used vehicle under the Safety Act. A vehicle with a new body and new chassis would be a new vehicle required to meet the standards in effect on the day that manufacture of the vehicle is completed. A vehicle with a new body and old chassis would be a used vehicle.

Section 108(a) (2) (A) of the Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, dealers, distributors and motor vehicle repair businesses (i.e., persons holding themselves out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation) from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a new or used motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This means that any person in the above categories m odifying a new or used vehicle must do so in a manner that ensures the continued compliance of the vehicle with applicable safety standards. This prohibition affects vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1968, the date on which the first Federal s afety standards became effective. For instance, a commercial business that installs a new fuel system in a passenger car manufactured on or after January 1, 1968 (the effective date of Standard No. 301) must ensure that the new system at least meets the level of safety performance required of the fuel system originally installed on the vehicle. Persons violating section 108 are subject to potential civil penalties of $1,000 per violation.

In instances in which a new vehicle body is installed on an old chassis, section 108(a) (2) (A) requires that the reassembled vehicle meet the Federal safety standards that had been in effect on the date of manufacture of the vehicle. I have enclosed a c opy of a January 14, 1976 letter to Mr. Tom Welland that describes generally the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards to refurbished motor vehicles. Please note that the first situation referred to in the Welland letter addresses the m odification of a vehicle by its owner. The prohibition in section 108(a) (2) (A) does not apply to the modifications made by vehicle owners to their own vehicles.

I will now address the questions you expressly posed in your letter. Your first three questions asked:

What relationship between allowable stresses in chassis members and the strength of the material is required (or customary) in the design of a passenger-carrying motor vehicle?

What relationship between static and dynamic load is required (or customary) in design assumptions for a passenger-carrying motor vehicle chassis?

What form or test or measurement is required (or customary) to confirm the results of the calculations?

As Ms. Hom informed you, our safety standards apply to new vehicles and are performance-oriented. NHTSA has not issued any design specifications that directly establish minimum static or dynamic loads for vehicle chassis. These design parameters are esta blished by the manufacturer independently of specific criteria set by the agency and might be available from the original manufacturer of the vehicle you are refurbishing. However, manufacturers of new vehicles are required by NHTSA to determine and spec ify the gross vehicle and axle weight ratings of their vehicles in the manner set forth in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 567 of our regulations. I have enclosed a copy of Part 567 for your information.

Chassis manufacturers must be aware, however, of the following two considerations relating to the static and dynamic load capacities of vehicles and NHTSA's regulations. First, because manufacturers of new vehicles must certify that their vehicles hill p erform to the requirements of all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, manufacturers must ensure that chassis design is compatible with the vehicle' s ability to comply. Some of our safety standards specify that the performance of requisite vehicle safety systems will be evaluated in dynamic (i.e., crash) tests which enable the agency to evaluate the synergistic effect of a range of variables on a vehicle's compliance therewith. Manufacturers of new vehicles would therefore have to ensure that the design of the chassis will have no negative effect on their vehicle's compliance with applicable safety standards.

Second, as mentioned above, NHTSA has the authority to investigate safety-related defects in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment and to require manufacturers to recall and remedy such defects free of charge. Chassis manufacturers must therefore en sure that their products contain no safety related defects, which might well include a chassis member that is incapable of carrying loads for which it is intended.

Further, the vehicle manufacturer who provides the GVWR and GAWR information required by Part 567 must ensure that the information relating to the chassis static loads is correct.

On a separate matter, your letter also asked about the requirements manufacturers must meet when installing a plastic fuel tank in a motor vehicle. The standard we issued for vehicle fuel system integrity (No. 301) sets performance requirements for fuel systems in new motor vehicles. As with all our safety standards, Standard No. 301 (copy enclosed) specifies the test that the agency will use to evaluate the performance of the requisite safety system (e.g. the fuel system) on new vehicles selected for i nclusion in its compliance test program. Manufacturers are not bound, however, to use the tests specified in the safety standards for evaluating the compliance of their vehicles or equipment with our standards. Instead, a manufactures may test in any man ner it chooses, so long as it can show that it has exercised due care in ensuring that its vehicles or items of equipment comply with the applicable Federal requirements.

In addition to the materials described above, I have also enclosed information that provides an overview of Federal requirements applying to manufacturers of new motor vehicles and instructions on how you can obtain copies of NHTSA regulations.

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

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures omitted.

Ref: Passenger vehicle design parameters

Dear Erika:

In accordance with our telephone conversation I have listed some specific questions the have a direct bearing on an ongoing project. Our purpose is to produce a specification for refurbishment of a type of passenger vehicle that was first produced twenty years ago. Our request is for either direct answers to the questions below and/or references to available publications or regulations that are the authorities for the answer.

The questions are as follows:

1. What relationship between allowable stresses in chassis members and the strength of the material is required (or customary) in the design of passenger carrying motor vehicle?

2. What relationship between static and dynamic load is required (or customary) in design assumptions for a passenger carrying motor vehicle chassis?

3. What form of test or measurement is required (or customary) to confirm the results of the calculations?

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (2) September 3, 1987

4. What data on characteristics and/or tests of a plastic fuel tank are required for approval of its use in a passenger carrying vehicle?

I thank you for your time and effort in supplying this information and hope to hear from you shortly.

In appreciation

ARTECH CORP.

Derek Nash Manager, Engineering Services

ID: nht87-1.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/20/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Senator Strom Thurmond

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 3/22/79 letter from Frank Berndt to Sterling Troxel; 10/5/78 letter from Joseph J. Levin to Charles B. Honeycutt; 12/29/77 letter from Joseph J. Levin to Kentucky Dept. of Education; 3/20/78 letter from J.J. Levin, Jr., to Nebraska Dept. of Mot or Vehicles

TEXT:

Dear Senator Thurmond:

Thank you for your December 8, 1986, letter enclosing correspondence from your constituent, Mr. Roy H. Herron of the Anderson County School District No. 3 in Iva, concerning our school bus regulations. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply , since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for administering Federal programs relating to school bus safety.

In his letters to you' Mr. Herron expressed his concern with Federal laws Which he believes prohibit the school district from using 15-passenger vans manufactured on or after April 1, 1977, that do not meet Federal school bus standards. be argues that th ere is a need for school districts to use 15-passenger vans and suggests that we amend our regulations to permit their use.

I appreciate this opportunity to clarify our regulations for school buses. As explained below, the Federal requirements apply only to the manufacture and sale of new school buses, not to the operation of school buses after they have been purchased. Thus, there is no Federal law that prohibits the Anderson County School District from using their 15-passenger vans to carry school children. Federal law does, however, affect the manufacture of the vans and their sale to school districts.

I believe it might be helpful to begin with some background information on our school bus regulations. NHTSA has the authority, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, to regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. In 1974, Congress enacted the School bus and Motor Vehicle Safety Amendments which directed NHTSA to issue motor vehicle safety standards on specific aspects of school bus safety and apply those standards to all vehicles designed to carry more than 10 passengers and likely to be significantly used for student transportation. The school bus standards we issued became effective April 1, 1977, and apply to each new school bus manufactured on or after that date. School buses manufactured prior to the effective date of the safety standards were not required to be designed and built in compliance with those standards.

Under the Vehicle Safety Act, manufacturers of school buses must ensure that their new vehicles meet all Federal safety standards applicable to buses and also those specifically applicable to school buses. The Safety Act also requires each person selling a new "school bus" to ensure that the bus complies with our school bus safety standards or be potentially subject to fines under Federal law. We define a "school bus" as a motor vehicle designed for 11 or more persons (driver included) and intended for transporting students to and from school or related events. Since new 15-passenger vans that are sold to the Anderson County School Districts are considered "school buses" under Federal law, persons selling such vans must ensure that the vans conform to Federal school bus safety standards.

Mr. Herron suggests that the definition of a school bus be amended to provide that passenger capacity be extended to 15 passengers. NHTSA's definition of a school bus necessarily follows the statutory definition of that term. Without a change by Congress in the statutory definition, our definition must remain as it is.

Your constituent argues in his letter to you that 15-passenger vans should be safe enough for school children since they are safe for other passengers. The legislative history of the School bus amendments of 1974 indicate that Congress believed that spec ial measures should be taken to protect school children who use school bus transportation. Fifteen-passenger vans (i.e., buses) meeting our school bus safety standards provide more safety features than other buses. School buses must meet stringent perfor mance requirements, including those for interior protection, fuel systems, emergency exits, windows and windshields and seating systems.

New 15-passenger vans, conforming to our school bus standards, may be sold to the Anderson County School Districts to transport its pupils to school related events. The school districts may also purchase 9-passenger vans for school transportation, becaus e such vans are considered "multipurpose passenger vehicles"' (MPV's) and not "school buses" under Federal law. We do not prohibit the sale of new MPV's to carry school children nor do we require then to comply with Federal school bus safety standards. I nstead, they must meet the performance requirements set by the safety standards for MPV's, which also provide high levels of passenger safety.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

December 8, 1986 Mr. David Sloane, Director Congressional Affairs Department of Transportation Suite 10406, 400 Seventh Streets S. W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Sloan:

I have enclosed for your review communication from Mr. Roy H. Herron regarding the regulations pertaining to the transporting of students to and from school.

It is my understanding that your regulations allow schools to use vans that Here manufactured on or before April 1, 1977 that do not comply with school bus safety standards, but the schools are not allowed to use new vans unless they comply with all the school bus safety standards.

I would appreciate your explaining these regulations and giving me an up to date status report of this case.

With kindest regards and Greetings of the Season,

Sincerely,

Strom Thurmond

ST/hk Enclosure

November 25, 1986

The Honorable Strom Thurmond The United States Senate Washington, D. C.

Attention Mr. Jeff Kull

Dear Sir:

This letter is follow-up to our conversation this date concerning the use of vans to transport school students to related events.

The more we read into this problem it appears that the Department of Transportation is concerned only with vehicles introduced into the transportation system.

The attached letter, dated March 22, 1979, from then Acting Chief Counsel Frank Berndt to Mr. Sterling Troxel states in paragraph three that "the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not regulate the sale or use of used vehicles. Therefore , there would be no Federal penalty upon a person selling such a used vehicle for school use."

This whole set of regulation is arbitrary. Under current regulations a church group can transport our school students on Saturday and/or Sunday in the same type vehicle we use and be legal.

Your assistance in getting this regulation changed or waived so that school districts can use vans designed to carry 15 passengers or less, including driver, will be appreciated.

Sincerely,

Roy H. Herron Superintendent

encls.

The Honorable Strom Thurmond United States Senator Senate Office Building Washington, D. C. 20515

Dear Senator Thurmond:

The purpose of this letter is to ask for your assistance. We have recently been made aware of Department of Transportation regulations (attached) that prohibit the use of vehicles designed to trans- port more than 10 passengers, that were manufactured af ter 1977, for the purpose of transporting school students unless the vehicle meets school bus specifications.

This school district and the vast majority of other districts in South Carolina use vans for transporting cheerleaders, small athletic teams, students on field trips and other academic related activities.

This regulation does not seem to be well thoughtout. Either a vehicle is safe to carry passengers or it is not; whether they be school children or adults. A van with its higher gross vehicle weight and seats installed higher than most other traffic is mu ch safer than a station wagon or automobile.

The impact of complying with this regulation is substantial. To replace our two vans with minibuses will cost our district $60,000 plus increased operating expenses. We are a small district, therefore, the impact on larger districts is even greater.

We have operated vans for many years with a perfect safety record. They serve a need most effectively and efficiently.

A remedy that will aid all school districts in South Carolina is for DOT to amend its regulation so that vehicles designed to carry 15 passengers or less be exempt from school bus standards. This change will not contribute to reduced safety for our stude nts.

Your assistance in this matter is most appreciated.

Sincerely,

Roy H. Herroxn Superintendent

(See letters from NHTSA to Sterling Troxel, Charles B. Honeycutt, Nebraska Dept. of Motor Vehicles and Kentucky Dept. of Education)

ID: nht88-2.88

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/08/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: KOJI TOKUNAGA -- MANAGER, ENGINEERING, ISUZU MOTORS AMERICA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 4-27-87, FMVSS 124-ACCELERATOR CONTROL SYSTEMS, OCC-448, DET-87-063

TEXT: This letter responds to your inquiry in which you ask a number of questions concerning Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) 124 Accelerator Control Systems. I apologize for the delay in this response. In your letter, you describe a new acceler ator control system that operates through electrical rather than mechanical signals.

You state that the moving components of this system are the accelerator pedal, stepping motor arm, linkage, and the throttle lever. When a driver depresses the accelerator pedal, a pedal sensor converts the displacement into a proportional electric sign al. The signal goes through a control unit to a position switch, and then to a stepping motor. This stepping motor works to move the motor's arm and linkage, and they in turn work the throttle lever. Therefore, you say, the engine speed is controlled i n proportion to the amount of accelerator pedal displacement.

You further inform us that Isuzu already has distributed vehicles equipped with this system in Japan, and that the company would like to market this kind of vehicle in the United States. You present three questions and a diagram of the system components , and request an agency response.

First, please be aware that in issuing this interpretation, NHTSA is neither approving, certifying, nor endorsing your new accelerator control system. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, each manufacturer must certify that its produ ct meets agency safety standards, or other applicable standards. However, based on the information you supplied in your letter, I have the following responses.

Question 1: In this vehicle, Isuzu considers the battery that drives the stepping motor to be one of the energy sources under S5.1, and the return springs (accelerator pedal and throttle lever return springs) the other sources. Is this interpretation correct?

P2

We do not have enough information to state whether the battery that drives the stepping motor, or the return springs would be considered energy sources under S5.1. Section S5.1 of Standard 124 requires, among other things, that there be a minimum of two energy sources capable of returning the throttle to idle whenever the driver removes the opposing actuating force, or if there is a single severance or disconnection in the accelerator control system.

With respect to the battery, if all system elements are operating properly, then it would appear that removing the actuating force will cause the electrical circuit from accelerator pedal sensor to stepping motor to return the throttle to idle. On the o ther hand, if there is a failure caused by a severance or disconnection in the accelerator control system between the pedal and the stepping motor, it is not clear to me whether the stepping motor will return to zero, and bring the throttle springs back to idle; or lock the arm and linkage in an "open-throttle" position.

Similarly, it is not clear to me that the accelerator pedal and throttle return springs are capable of returning the throttle to idle in the event of a failure caused by an ACS severance or disconnection. (While you include the throttle lever in your des cription of the accelerator control system, the agency considers it as part of the fuel metering device. However, as NHTSA explained in the preamble to 124, an energy source under the Standard may be attached to the fuel metering device. [37 FR 20033, September 23, 1972.]) Ordinarily, the agency would have no difficulty in finding that either of the throttle return springs is an energy source capable of returning the throttle to idle. But I cannot tell from your description and diagram whether a seve rance or disconnection in the electrical system would cause the throttle to lock in a position other than idle.

I would make the same observation with respect to the accelerator pedal. I can not tell from the information you supplied what impact a severance or disconnection failure would have on the pedal. For example, it is not apparent whether some element in the electrical system senses a severance or disconnection in the accelerator control system, so that a sensor transmits a signal to the appropriate energy sources that the throttle should return to idle. If the pedal and return springs can operate mecha nically and in concert to return the throttle to idle in the event of a failure in the accelerator control system caused by a severance or disconnection, then together they may be an energy source under the Standard.

Question 2a: Is a severance in electric wires in this system a severance or disconnection within the meaning of S5.2? Isuzu considers negative because electric wires are not a moving part.

A severance or disconnection of the electric wires in this system would be a severance or disconnection within the meaning of S5.2 of Standard 124.

Section S4.1 of Standard 124 defines a "driver-operated accelerator control system" as

"all vehicle components, except the fuel metering device, that regulate engine speed in direct response to movement of the driver-operated control and that return the throttle to the idle position upon release of the actuating force."

You stated in your letter that, in this new system, when the driver depresses the accelerator pedal, the mechanical displacement is converted into electrical signals. These electrical signals are transmitted by wires to a control unit that regulates eng ine speed in direct response to pressure on the accelerator pedal, again by means of wires that connect the control unit's electrical signal to the appropriate components. Thus, the control unit, all of the components to which it is connected, and the w ires that make those connections are "vehicle components... that regulate engine speed in direct response to movement of the driver-operated control and that return the throttle to the idle position upon release of the actuating force." Under S4.1, then, the control unit, the components to which it is connected, and the wires that make the connection are components of the driver-operated accelerator control system.

Section S5.2 of Standard 124 requires that the throttle return to idle "from any accelerator position or any speed...whenever any one component of the accelerator control system is disconnected or severed at a single point." Please note that this languag e does not limit the requirement to disconnections or severances of components that are moving parts. Thus, all severances or disconnections of any component of the accelerator control system are within the ambit of the standard. In this case, since th e wires are a component of the accelerator control system, the throttle must return to idle whenever a wire is disconnected or severed.

Question 2b: If a severance in electric wires were a severance or disconnection under S5.2, what about a short-circuiting that may result from such a severance? Does the Standard require that the throttle returns to the idle position even in such a c ondition?

Yes. Section S5.2 of Standard 124 requires the throttle to return to the idle position whenever any component of the accelerator control system is disconnected or severed at a single point, regardless of the other consequences of the disconnection or se verance. In the case of this system, this language requires the throttle to return to idle when any wire is severed, even if the severance results in a short circuit.

Question 2c: Our understanding is that a failure (other than severance or disconnection) of a system component itself (i.e. a failure in the accelerator pedal sensor with pedal position switches, control unit, throttle valve position switch, or steppi ng motor) is not subject to the throttle return requirement under the Standard. Is this correct?

Your understanding is partially correct. Standard 124 addresses those circumstances where (1) the driver removes the opposing actuating force; and (2) a severance or disconnection in the ACS causes a failure. Therefore, you are correct that Standard 12 4 addresses only those

failures resulting from a severance or disconnection within the system. However, for electrical systems, shorted or open circuits are the consequence of a change in one or more of the electrical components in the system. The agency would consider such a change a disconnection or severance in the context of this Standard.

Question 3: It is our interpretation that the battery and the electric wires from the battery to the control unit are not a part of the accelerator control system under this definition. (That is, the definition of "driver-operated accelerator control system.") Is this interpretation correct?

No, your interpretation is incorrect. We have set out the definition of "driver-operated accelerator control system" in section S4.1 above, in response to your Question 2a. With respect to your electrical accelerator control system, the electrical impu lse that travels between the vehicle battery and the control unit is a direct consequence of the driver's applying an actuating force to the accelerator pedal. Given this aspect of your system's design, both the vehicle battery and the electric wires fr om the battery to the control unit fall within the definition of "driver-operated accelerator control system."

I hope you find this information helpful.

ID: nht74-2.36

DATE: 05/06/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Questor Juvenile Products Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 9, 1974, petition to substitute the proposed performance requirements for child harness testing under Standard No. 213, Child seating systems, for the performance requirements of Standard No. 209, Seat belt assemblies, to which Questor's Model 275 child harness is presently subject. As reasons for the substitution, you cite the inappropriateness of attachment hardware requirements (S4.3(c)) and the configuration of the test device (Figure 7) of Standard No. 209 as well as the desirability of testing to dynamic performance requirements which may become a part of Standard No. 213.

The Standard No. 213 dynamic test values which you recommend are only proposals at this time. Interested parties have not had a full opportunity to comment on them and the NHTSA has not, of course, had the opportunity to fully evaluate them. For these reasons your petition to substitute these new dynamic tests for the Standard No. 209 static tests is denied.

You state that testing of the Model 275 to the assembly performance requirements of Standard No. 209 (S4.4(c)) is complicated by the configuration of the test device for Type III harnesses, which is not suited to test a child harness such as the Questor No. 275 that utilizes the adult front lap belts and the rear adult lap belt or the package shelf as attachment points.

Paragraph S5.3(c)(2) of Standard No. 209 directs that in such a case "attachment shall be . . . in accordance with the [manufacturer's] installation instructions". As adherence to Model 275 installation instructions requires a front and rear adult belt installation (and in some cases a package shelf) the use of an actual vehicle bench seat in a passenger car would be an appropriate method to evaluate the assembly under S4.4(c) of Standard No. 209. Moreover, because the 12-inch extension requirement for an assembly tested under S4.4(c) is based on zero deflection of the test device, the actual vehicle seat should be modified to eliminate deflection.

The NHTSA has previously determined that the requirements of S4.3(c) of Standard No. 209 do not apply to bolts used to secure an adult upper torso restraint, other than the continuous loop type. Similarly, we interpret this provision not apply to the child harness upper torso restraint described in your letter. The bolts would be regulated with respect to strength only by the assembly performance requirements of S4.4(c).

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

April 9, 1974

Richard B. Dyson -- Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Dear Mr. Dyson:

Questor Corporation has recently developed a novel child restraint harness that is to be marketed under the brand name "Infanseat Model 275 Child Restraint Harness." This restraint system has been under development for over two years to provide maximum dynamic performance at least possible cost to the consumer.

The Infanseat Model 275 Child Restraint Harness has closely approached the dynamic performance objectives proposed by the DOT to be effective September 1, 1975. When tested with a standard Sierra three-year-old child dummy, this restraint limited head excursion to 18.8 inches in a 30 mph frontal barrier impact test. Additional improvements in design have been made which will further reduce head excursion.

The unique design characteristics of this harness, which provide exceptional dynamic performance, also present difficulties in determining its compliance with FMVSS 209 for Type 3 seat belt assemblies. These problems were discussed with Messrs. R. Jasinski, J. Gilkey, T. Herlihy, and M. Peskoe during a personal visit to Washington on April 4. Mr. Jasinski also reviewed the situation in a phone conversation with Mr. R. Hitchcock. It was suggested after these conversations that this letter be written to you, outlining the areas of concern relative to FMVSS 209.

The design of Infanseat Model 275 Child Restraint Harness departs radically from child harnesses commercially available to date. Current harnesses require mounting to the floor of the automobile to restrain the child and vehicle seat back from movement during impact or load. Inasmuch as this floor anchorage could inadvertently be used by the present automobile owner or subsequent owners for an adult lap belt attachment point, it is understandable that FMVSS 209 would require the strength of this anchorage to be no less than 5,000 pounds, paragraph S4.3 (c) (1).

It is further recognized that currently available child harnesses loop over the adult backrest of automobiles, prior to being themselves anchored to the vehicle floor, and thus largely rely upon the strength of the automobile backrest to reduce movement of the child in an accident situation and/or also restrain the backrest. The assembly performance criteria of FMVSS 209 paragraphs S5.3 (c) (1) through (4) provide some degree of simulating this installation, and yet the force requirement that the complete assembly is required to withstand is 2,000 pounds, 100 per cent greater than the force requirements of FMVSS 213.

The Model 275 Child Harness is shown in accompanying Figures 1 and 2. The significant differences in its installation when compared with existing harnesses are readily apparent.

Firstly, an adult lap belt is used to position the lower portion of the child's harness both laterally and forwardly. Secondly, a back strap, or upper tie-down, connects the child harness at the shoulder strap area to either a rear seat adult lap belt for a front seat installation (Figure 1) in an automobile or to a supplementary anchor installed in the metal portion of the panel between the seat back and the rear window for rear seat installation (Figure 2). Neither the front nor rear seat installations require changes or additions to anchorages at the vehicle floor.

The viability of the upper tie-down attachment has been dynamically demonstrated by a well-known child seating restraint system that not only must restrain the child but also the child seating system itself. The upper tie-down strap most nearly approximates the function of an adult shoulder strap; that is, it keeps the upper torso from pivoting forward in a frontal impact. FMVSS 209 does not specify minimum force requirements for either Type 2, Type 2a, or Type 3 upper torso restraint attachment hardware.

It is suggested, therefore, that the requirements within FMVSS 209 for attachment hardware are neither clear nor appropriate for the Infanseat harness. In addition, the test method for assembly performance does not provide for the recommended installation of this product.

While attempts could be made to modify the simulated seat back shown in Figure 7 of FMVSS 209 to provide for the installation of the Infanseat harness, it is felt that any modification will not adequately reporduce the distribution of forces encountered in real-world situations. Also, any approved simulated static load test of a complete assembly at this time is not felt to be appropriate with dynamic testing of child harnesses soon to be required.

It is respectfully suggested that rather than subject the DOT to possible adverse public criticism by requesting another static test to determine the adequacy of the complete Infanseat harness assembly, it be excluded from the attachment hardware and complete assembly requirements of FMVSS 209. In lieu of these requirements, the Infanseat harness should be required to prevent head excursion of a Sierra three-year-old test device beyond 18 inches in a simulated 30 mph frontal impact test. The Infanseat harness would thus be required to meet the DOT's proposed dynamic performance requirements for child restraints.

Data substantiating the dynamic performance of the Infanseat harness has been independently verified by tests conducted for Consumers Union on prototype harnesses. These tests were not published by CU because the harnesses were not available commercially when their magazine went to press. Additional tests have been conducted to determine the suitability of various materials, installations, and test devices. Significant improvements to the harness are expected to be made, such that it appears likely in the very near future to provide dynamic protection for six-year-old children within the proposed excursion limits desired by the DOT.

As important as the Infanseat harness's dynamic performance is its expected retail selling price. The DOT and child restraint manufacturers are equally concerned that children's restraint devices be affordable by the largest possible segment of the public. It is recognized that the purchase and, therefore, the eventual use of children's restraints are directly related to their cost. The Infanseat harness is expected to be marketed at one-half to one-third of the price of existing restraint systems.

Thank you for your attention to this request for revised interim requirements that would be applicable to the Infanseat harness, and your early response shall be greatly appreciated. It is understood that this product would automatically be required to comply with the proposed revisions to FMVSS 213 when they become effective.

Yours very truly,

QUESTOR JUVENILE PRODUCTS COMPANY;

J. P. Koziatek, P.E. #E-36338 -- Director, Technical Services

Attachments

cc: R. Hitchcock; T. W. Herlihy; M. P. Peskoe; J. C. Gilkey; R. Jasinski

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)