ID: nht88-1.96

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 14, 1988

FROM: C. DIANNE BLACK -- ENGINEERING MANAGER, JAGUAR

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

TITLE: FMVSS 108, HEADLAMP LEVELLING SYSTEMS

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 8-1-88, TO C. DIANNE BLACK, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, STD 108

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of February 1, 1988 which discussed our June and October 1987 letters regarding a headlamp levelling system for our US models.

We have reviewed your letter, and we have decided that we should go one step further and provide a drawing of the switch, showing its location on the steering column shroud and to perhaps better describe its operation.

To reiterate from our October 17, 1987 letter, the switch has three positions -

zero = driver only or

driver plus front passenger or

driver plus front and rear passengers

one = driver plus passengers plus maximum trunk load

two = driver plus maximum load in trunk

The switch/lamp motor system is limited to the above three positions and intermediate settings are not possible. The switch is not a rheostat but rather a 'master/slave' unit. The switch is illuminated by turning on the headlamps and it cannot be turne d off.

Headlamp alignment is adjustable only in the zero position.

We believe that full description in the owner handbook, and the fully visible illuminated switch will enhance owner familiarity with the system and the system can be used to enhance headlighting performance.

We hope this will further clarify the system and allay your concerns over our headlamp levelling system and its operation.

Feel free to contact me should you have further questions.

Headlamp Dipped-Beam Levelling Control

Driver's-Eye View (On Left Steering Column Shroud)

ID: nht88-1.97

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/15/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Don Montgomery

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

The Honorable Don Montgomery Senator, Twenty-First District 1218 Main Sabetha, Kansas 66534-1835

Dear Mr. Montgomery:

Senator Kassebaum has asked me to respond to your February 12, 1988 letter to her. In your letter, you expressed concerns about a problem that has arisen in connection with using "van type buses designed to carry 10 or less passengers, without meeting al l the requirements of a school bus." You state that there is a problem with using these vehicles to transport students because "federal law classifies the vans by weight and calls them twelve passenger vehicles, which calls for the pan to meet all school bus regulations." As a solution, you suggest a change in Federal law might be appropriate to exempt the vehicles you describe "from the height classification in determining how many passengers they would be capable of carrying."

As I understand your letter, there appears to be a misunderstanding about how Federal law operates with respect to school buses. There may also be a misunderstanding about whether it is a Federal or state definition that determines which vehicles may be used to transport school children in Kansas.

Under Federal regulations, there is no vehicle classification called "van." Instead, a passenger van is classified as either a "multipurpose passenger vehicle" (MPV) or a "bus" depending primarily upon its seating capacity. An MPV is a motor vehicle desi gned to carry a driver and 9 or fewer passengers, and either constructed on a truck chassis or equipped with features for off-road operation. A bus is a motor vehicle designed to carry a driver and 10 or more passengers.

Given these definitions, a van with 9 or fewer designated seating positions for passengers cannot, regardless of its weight or gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR), be a bus within the meaning of Federal law and regulation. (GVWR is the manufacturer's dete rmination of a vehicle 's loaded weight, i.e., the weight of the vehicle plus its designed capacity to carry people and cargo.) On the other hand, if a van is manufactured with 12 or 15 designated seating positions as you stated, then the vehicle is a bus. The number of passengers that such a van may actually carry on any given trip does not affect its classification as a bus.

If that vehicle is manufactured and sold to carry school children, then the vehicle is not just a bus, but a school bus. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and regulations issued thereunder define a school bus in terms of (1) the vehicle's designed capacity for carrying people, and (2) the vehicle' s intended use. More specifically, a school bus is a motor vehicle designed for carrying a driver and 10 or more passengers, and sold for transporting students to and from school or school-rela ted events.

Gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) is used in some safety standards to differentiate between smaller and larger school buses in the application of those standards. For example, Safety Standard No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection, s pecifies one set of requirements for school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less and another for those with a GVWR of greater than 10,000 pounds.

NHTSA's definition of school bus is used by the agency in regulating the manufacture and sale of new vehicles. New vehicles which are classified as school buses must meet the FMVSSs for school buses. A school bus manufacturer must certify that its vehicl es meet all applicable Federal safety standards, and a commercial seller must sell only a complying vehicle as a school bus. Thus, a dealer who has a 12 or 15 passenger van that has not been certified as complying with the Federal school bus safety stand ards and sells that vehicle to a school district has, in all likelihood, violated the statutory prohibition against the sale of a noncomplying vehicle. (Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 571 contains the Federal safety standards appl icable to school buses and other vehicles.)

However, this agency can not regulate the purchase or use of a vehicle, and consequently can not require a school district to purchase or use only those vehicles that comply with the Federal school bus safety standards. A State may do so by adopting appr opriate vehicle definitions and requirements. To determine whether a local Kansas school district may purchase or use a noncomplying vehicle as a school bus, you must look to the laws of the State of Kansas, not the Federal laws and regulations.

On the other hand, I must emphasize NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students, and encourage you to give this your most careful consideration.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Joan Tilghman of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

cc: The Honorable Nancy Landon Kassebaum United States Senator Washington, DC 20515

Re: The Honorable Don Montgomery Senator, Twenty-First District 1218 Main Sabetha, Kansas 66534-1835

Respectfully referred to:

Ms. Nancy F. Miller Director of Congressional Affairs Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Because of the desire of this office to be responsive to all inquiries and communications, your consideration of the attached is requested. Please respond directly to the constituent with a copy to my office. Your findings and views will be appreciated b y

Nancy Landon Kassebaum United States Senator

Attention: Guy Clough

The Honorable Nancy Kassebaum United States Senate P. O. Box 51 Topeka, KS. 66683

Dear Senator Kassebaum:

I am enclosing copies of two letters I received concerning the use of van type buses designed to carry 10 or less passengers, without meeting all the requirements of a school bus. The problem comes about because the federal law classifies the vans by wei ght and calls them twelve passenger vehicles, which calls for the van to meet all school bus regulations.

A change in the federal law to allow van type vehicles designed to carry up to ten passengers may be exempt from the weight classification in determining how many passengers they would be capable of carrying. Many of these types of vans are presently own ed by school districts and can't be used because of the federal law determination that they can carry so many passengers, because of the weight classification when in reality there aren't that many passenger seats.

I would be happy to furnish any information available to me that might be of assistance to you in trying to help solve this problem.

Sincerely,

Don Montgomery Senator, Twenty-First District

DM:lm

CC: Doris Hupe, USD 343 James Shepherd, Supt. USD 343 Rep. Robin Leach Rep. John Solbach

January 5, 1988

Dear Board of Education Members:

The Board of Education U.S.D. #343 Perry, Kansas is asking for your support in passage of legislation which would clarify and make more workable K.S.A. 8-126 and amendments thereto. K.S.A- 8-126 defines/describes motor vehicles, specifically those design ed for transporting 10 passengers or less.

Enclosed you will find a letter addressed to Representative John Solbach concerning the problem of classification of motor vehicles as related to the transportation of students. It is the belief of the Board of Education U.S.D. #343 that many districts i n the State of Kansas are affected by K.S.A. 8-326 at great expense to the taxpayers.

We are asking that you support the development of legislation which would allow Districts that own vehicles classified to carry 12 to 15 passengers to continue using these vehicles as long as they adhere to the 10-passenger rule. We ask that you contact your State Legislators and ask their support of such legislation.

Respectfully

Board of Education, U.S.D. #343 Doris Hupe, President

November 13, 1987

Mr. John H. Solbach Rt. 1 Lawrence, Kansas 66044

Dear Mr. Solbach:

I am writing this letter to inform you of a problem experienced by Unified School Districts in the State of Kansas, concerning the use of vans for student transportation, and to ask your support in solving this problem.

Over the years many school districts within our state have purchased vans to be used in the transportation of special education students, for shuttles to bus pickup points, for students activities, and for kindergarten. The saving on this type of vehicle over a standard bus for a small number of students is quite large. Our problem lies on the fact that state law requires that only ten students at a time may be transported on such a vehicle, and that said vehicle must be classified for ten or fewer pass engers at a time.

School districts have understood and complied with the ten passenger rule. Where our problem lies is in the classification of the vehicle. First it is almost impossible to purchase a van with a classification of ten passengers. Second, most school distri cts have in their possession vehicles classified to carry 12 or 15 passengers.

Due to the present interpretation of the law these vehicles are now useless and must be sold and new ones purchased at great expense to the school districts and State of Kansas.

At this writing it is my understanding that Representative Robin Leach is planning to introduce legislation concerning this problem. It would be our hope that you might support such legislation or entertain the possibility of your own bill. I would be mo st happy to discuss our concern with you at your convenience.

Respectfully,

James R. Shephard, Ed. D. Superintendent of Schools

ID: nht88-1.98

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/18/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Wayne Apple

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 6/19/89 letter from Stephen P. Wood to Rod Willaredt (A33; Std. 108); 5/17/89 letter from Rod Willaredt to Taylor Vinson; 2/19/88 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Charles Wilson; 7/11/88 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Willaim J. Stephenson

TEXT:

Mr. Wayne Apple 14738 Bronson Avenue San Jose, CA 95124

Dear Mr. Apple:

This is in reply to your letter of December 29. 1987, in which you asked whether a U-Turn Indicator "is reasonable, within federal regulations or specifications, and if the Department of Transportation has interest in the concept and/or product."

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment contains specifications for original and replacement lighting equipment. None of these specifications is for a U-Turn indicator. However, a U-Turn indicator is acceptable as original vehicle equipment provided it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that the standard requires, such as turn signal lamps, headlamps, taillamps, and stop lamps. Your proposed specifications recognize the i mportance of differentiation between the left turn signal and the U-Turn indicator, and we encourage you to minimize the possibility of impairment.

Standard No. 108 does not cover a U-Turn indicator as an aftermarket device, but it is subject to the general restriction that its installation must not render inoperative, in whole or part, any lamp reflective device, or associated equipment that was in stalled pursuant to Standard No. 108. (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a)(2)(A)) The legibility of use of an aftermarket device of this nature would be determinable under the laws of the State in which a vehicle equipped with it is registered or operated. The American A ssociation of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 1201 Connecticut Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 may be able to advise you further on State laws.

Accident data available to the agency does not permit us to identify specific crashes in which a vehicle is making a U-Turn. However, an analysis of data from one of our files that contains information on almost 3 million crashes indicates that the gener al type of crash for which U-Turn crashes are a subset (left-turning crashes) constitutes less than 6% of the total crash experience. Thus, we believe that the number of U-Turn crashes is substantially less than 6% represented by the broader category of crashes involving left-turning vehicles.

We do not know the basis for your statement that your U-turn indicator "will probably reduce accidents involving U-turns by over thirty percent". However, the agency is interested in exploring concepts that could enhance vehicle safety. I am providing ou r Office of Research and Development with a copy of your letter for such further comment as may be warranted.

We appreciate your interest in safety.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

CC: Michael Finkelstein

December 29, 1987

Erika Jones, Chief Counsel Legal Office, Room 5219 D.O.T. Headquarters 400 7th Street Southwest Washington D.C. 20590

Dear Erika,

I have been instructed by the Office of Vehicle Compliance to write you concerning a new Safety feature I have designed. I am interested in receiving feedback as to whether my idea is reasonable, within federal regulations or specifications, and if the D epartment of Transportation has interest in the concept and/or product.

The reason I have designed this Safety feature, which is called an Automobile U-turn Directional Indicator was to reduce the number of automobile accidents in which U turns are involved. My sister and several acquaintances, have suffered serious injuries , primarily due to the lack of communication between drivers, simply because they do not have a tool by which to communicate.

The solution is simple and at a very low cost, yet it could save the lives of many.

Please review the attached documentation, and feel free to write or call me if you have any questions or require additional information. Thank you for your time and effort.

Sincerely,

Wayne Apple 14738 Bronson Ave. San Jose, CA 95124 (408) 377-0174 Home (408) 986-2526 Work

AUTOMOBILE U-TURN DIRECTIONAL INDICATOR SAFETY FIRST

Far too many accidents involve U-turns, and most likely they are of a serious nature. The ability to make a U-turn is much too convenient to try to strip away from the American public. A better and simple means of communicating the intention of making a U-turn is in order; and I have the solution. Implementing this simple tool will probably reduce accidents involving U-turns by over thirty percent.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Situation A: You are in you automobile waiting in the left turn lane with or without a signal light. There is an automobile in front of you, and one behind you, waiting as well. When it is time to turn, the car ahead of you starts accelerating through th e turn. You accelerate as well, and so does the car behind you. Suddenly, midway through the turn, the car in front of you whips into a sharp U-turn, without any means of warning. If you are not quick to react, you clip the rear end of the car as it make s it U-turn, sending it into a spin, hopefully avoiding any serious injuries. If you were quick to react, you end up slamming on your brakes and either slide into the car making the U-turn, or have the car behind you crash into your rear end, slamming yo u into the car making the U-turn. Hopefully, no serious injuries result. Had you known the driver was going to make a U-turn all along you would have been prepared for it from the start of the turn. No accident would have resulted.

Situation B: You are driving your automobile down the street and approach an intersection. There is a car with sitting in the oncoming traffic left hand turn lane. They have activated their left hand turn indicator. There are several cars following behin d your car. The oncoming car in the left hand turn lane believing there is enough time to make the turn, and there probably is. You slow down, so do the cars behind you, to allow for the turning car to pass through the intersection. Suddenly the car whip s into a U-turn. There is not enough time to react. Your car crashes into the U-turn car. One or two of the cars behind you crash into your car's rear end. Hopefully no serious injuries result, but they usually do in such circumstances. Had you known the car was planning to make a U-turn initially, you would have applied the brakes harder when the driver first began the turn, and hopefully avoided any accident at all situation C: You are waiting at a four way intersection in your automobile to make a ri ght hand turn. There is a car waiting in the cross traffic left hand turn lane, ahead and to your right, with the left turn indicator blinking brightly. Right hand turns are legal in your state on red lights. There is a break in traffic. You begin to tur n to the right and into the lane. The car in the left hand turn lane begins to turn down the road you had just traveled on. Suddenly, the driver of the car turning left, who was paying more attention to the oncoming traffic, whips the steering wheel hard to make a sharp U-turn, which is legal at this intersection. The two cars collide, crushing the front ends of both automobiles. You would not have made the turn to the right had you suspected the driver of the other car would be making a U-turn.

PRODUCT SOLUTION

The need stated in the problem situations above is a means to notify other drivers when you are planning to make a U-turn, and be able to discern it from a left hand turn signal; thus, I have designed a product with the means to satisfy this need.

The product is an Automobile U-turn Directional Indicator (U-turn Blinker), which is to be mounted on the front and rear driver's side of the car next to the left hand turn indicator. They are to be activated by a four position turn indicator switch, tha t utilizes the fourth down position to activate the U-turn signal. It is recommended that there be additional resistance in moving from the third position (left turn) to the fourth position (U-turn) to alleviate mistakes, as well as a U-turn dash light.

PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS

* Four position indicator switch. Fourth position down is U-turn. Resistance between third and fourth position.

* The rear U-turn directional indicator light assembly is mounted near the rear left hand turn indicator. The arrow should start at the lower right portion of the light housing, head straight to the top, curve to the left, then point straight downward, a s if the driver trailing the car were looking at a posted U-turn sign.

* The front U-turn directional indicator light assembly is mounted near the front left hand turn indicator. The arrow should start at the upper left hand portion of the light housing, head straight down, bend to the right then head straight up.

PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS Cont...

* The black area contained within the U-turn light housing assembly which blacks out the portion of the light assembly to outline the arrow, should be painted on, or preferably, be made of black rubber and glued onto the reflector plastic.

* The reflector portion of the U-turn light housing assembly should be a different color than the left hand turn indicator, to better differentiate the two. A cross between yellow and lime green would be noticeable.

* The size and shape of the U-turn directional housing is up to the discretion of the manufacturer, with a minimum of three square inches.

* The intensity of the U-turn indicator light should be equal to, or brighter than, the left hand turn indicator. The color and arrow shape will assist in the differentiation.

* Matching reflector plates can be used on the right side of the car for cosmetics and balance.

* A U-turn dash light indicator should be located near the dash turn indicator light, preferably the same color as the reflector plate.

SUMMARY

Communications between automobile drivers needs to improve. Clearly notifying other driver's your intentions can reduce the number of accidents by over fifty percent. Having the tools to better communicate to other drivers is a necessity. The U-turn dire ctional indicator is one of those tools to making America's roads a safer place.

ID: nht88-1.99

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 18, 1988

FROM: ERMAN JACKSON -- SALES MANAGER-TRAILMASTER TANKS

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

ATTACHMT: DECEMBER 9, 1988 LETTER FROM JONES TO JACKSON

TEXT: As per the suggestion of Ms. Joan Tilghman, of the office of the Chief Council, I am writing to you in regards to an answer to a question that has occurred with a customer of ours. We mounted a new body on truck chassis which had been in service a numbe r of years. This truck was not modified in any way at the time of the installation. Our customer is in the opinion that we should issue a new Final Stage Manufacture Certificate at the time of the mounting of the new body. We on the other hand, are in the opinion that the Final Stage Manufacture Certificate is only issued when the chassis is new.

We would appreciate it if you could respond to this question in writing so that we may foreward it to our customer. Thank you for your consideration.

ID: nht88-2.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/19/88

FROM: D. BRUCE HENDERSON -- RANGE ROVER

TO: OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL, NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10/14/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO N. BOWYER; REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 208, 209; UNDATED LETTER FROM N. BOWYER TO OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; OCC 1909

TEXT: Dear Sir or Madam,

Enclosed is a request for interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards from Land Rover UK, Ltd., the manufacturer of Range Rover vehicles imported and sold in the U.S. by this company. We would appreciate your response to this request at the earliest possible time.

Thank you for your help and attention. Please contact me at the letterhead address and telephone number below if you need any further information about this request.

ENCLOSURE

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: nht88-2.100

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/11/88

FROM: PAUL ULTANS -- VICE PRESIDENT GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS SUBARU OF AMERICA

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10/13/88 TO PAUL UTANS FROM ERIKA Z JONES, REDBOOK A32 STANDARD 208, STANDARD 210; LETTER DATED 08/18/78 TO D. BLACK FROM JOSEPH J LEVIN, STANDARD 210, RE NOA - 30

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

Subaru of America, requests your interpretation of how the requirements of various Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) apply to a belt system Subaru would like to offer as standard equipment on its U.S. station wagon models, beginning in m id-model year 1989. This system is a manual, single-loop, 3-point (combination lap-shoulder) belt for use at the rear outboard seating positions.

Subaru currently offers a manual lap belt at the rear outboard positions of our station wagons. The belt system that we would like to offer is now used in European versions of these autos. It has a single-point buckle mechanism and is automatically adjustable. The upper anchorage for this European belt is located outside the FMVSS 210 "approved range", but within the ECE Regulation No. 14 "permitted area". (See enclosed Figures 1 and 2.) n1

n1 The vehicles in question have an additional upper anchorage located in the U.S. approved range, as required by FMVSS 210. However, the European belt system cannot directly be used with the U.S. anchorage, due to the need for additional bolt holes to accommodate the European belt and its retractor.

It is our view that the installation of the European-type belt in the ECE anchorage is permitted under the various FMVSSs. The European system qualifies as a "Type 2 belt assembly", as required in FMVSS 208. The European belt assembly is certified t o meet the requirements of FMVSS 209 by the belt manufacturer. The anchorages required under FMVSS 210 (including the current upper anchorage in the U.S. approved range) would continue to be provided. Therefore, we believe all the explicit requirements of these standards would continue to be met.

The minimum FMVSS seat belt requirements for rear outboard seating positions provide for lap belts and an additional upper anchorage (in a specified location). The upper anchorage is included to permit owner retrofit of a 3-point belt system, if desi red. Under our proposal, we would continue to provide these items. In addition, Subaru would voluntarily provide the shoulder portion of the belt and an additional anchorage. We believe the additional, voluntarily provided, items should not be subject to regulation, so long as they do not impair the functioning of any required safety equipment. We do not believe that the additional upper anchorage and shoulder belt section will in any way impair the operation of the lap belt section. To the contrar y, we believe that the additional items will provide further safety benefits. Permitting use of the European-type belt and anchorage would enable Subaru to provide U.S. vehicle purchasers with the benefits of three point restraint in an automatically adj ustable system at the earliest possible date. Requiring the use of an upper anchorage within the U.S. acceptable range would result in delay while anchorage and/or belt modifications are engineered and implemented.

In order for Subaru to begin offering the proposed belt system by mid-model year 1989 (e.g., to arrange for the necessary supplies of belt systems), we would need to receive your response to this letter no later than November 1, 1988. Therefore, we r equest your expeditious consideration of this proposal. If you have any questions on this matter, please contact me.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Sincerely,

FIGURE 1

1989 SUBARU STATION WAGON PROPOSED REAR SEAT THREE-POINT SEAT BELT INSTALLATION

(DIAGRAM OMITTED)

FIGURE 2

(DIAGRAM OMITTED)

1989 SUBARU STATION WAGON PROPOSED REAR SEAT THREE-POINT SEAT BELT INSTALLATION

ID: nht88-2.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 29, 1988

FROM: J. E. CARR -- PRODUCT SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL

TO: ERIKA JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: INTERPRETATION OF TERMS FOR FMVSS 124

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO MEMO DATED 11-9-88 TO J. E. CARR, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, STD 124

TEXT: The increasingly restrictive emissions requirements being specified make it imperative that Diesel Truck Engines have electronic engine controls. On many Caterpillar Truck Engines the traditional mechanical governor is being replaced by an Electronic Co ntrol Module (ECM). Caterpillar is asking NHTSA for interpretation of how the terms used in FMVSS 124 would be applied to an electronic system.

Regulation FMVSS 124, paragraph S5.2, concerns the throttle going to idle if there is a severance or disconnect in the accelerator control system. The accelerator control system is defined as all vehicle components, except the fuel metering device, that regulate engine speed in direct response to movement of the driver-operated control. When the mechanical governor and linkage is replaced by electronics and electrical wires, the distinction of what is part of the accelerator control system and what is part of the fuel metering device requires interpretation.

Attached is a sketch showing 3 types of accelerator control systems either in use or planned by Caterpillar.

Type I is a mechanical linkage pedal to a mechanical governor which moves a fuel rack. This is the mechanical system that has been in production for several years and is shown here for reference only.

Type II is a mechanical linkage connected to an accelerator pedal position sensor which is electrically connected to an Engine Control Module (ECM) and a Brushless Torque Motor (BTM) controling fuel injection by moving the fuel rack. The Caterpillar acce lerator pedal position sensor can be located at the OEM's option but is generally mounted on the engine compartment side of the firewall. Both the ECM and BTM are mounted on the engine. The ECM has a function similar to the mechanical governor in Type I in that it senses pedal position and engine speed along with several other factors and signals the BTM as to the desired amount of fuel to be injected.

Type III is a mechanical linkage to an accelerator pedal position sensor which is electrically connected to an ECM and to individual unit injectors. The ECM is mounted on the engine. The ECM senses pedal position and engine speed along with several oth er factors and signals the individual injectors as to the desired amount of fuel to be injected.

It is Caterpillar's position that in Type II and Type III Systems the term "Driver-Operated Accelerator Control System" includes all linkage and wiring up to the ECM. All other components shown in the sketch (except the battery) are part of the "Fuel Me tering Device".

Caterpillar would like confirmation from NHTSA that our interpretation of the definitions used in FMVSS 124 is correct. We would appreciate a prompt response. If you have any questions, please contact me or Jim McCollum on 309-675-5377.

SYSTEM COMPARISON

TYPE I

GOV RACK

Accelerator pedal

linkage

TYPE II

Accelerator pedal position sensor

Accelerator pedal

Bat.

ECM

BTM

RACK

TYPE III

Accelerator pedal position sensor

Accelerator pedal

ACCELERATOR CONTROL SYSTEM

ECM

Bat.

FUEL METERING DEVICE

ID: nht88-2.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 30, 1988

FROM: ROBERT W. STUCHELL

TO: MR. VINSON

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 9-13-88 EST., TO ROBERT W. STUCHELL, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, REDBOOK A32, STD 108

TEXT: I was referred to you by Mr. Kevin Cavey at D.O.T. and would appreciate an official statement as to whether there are any Federal regulations governing sale and/or use of lighted signs of any shape placed on the inside of the rear window of aftermarket c ars. Such signs would not be connected with any new car purchase.

I would also appreciate any information you may have regarding individual State regulations in this area.

ID: nht88-2.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/02/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Durham & Associates, P.C.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Robert R. Keatinge, Esq. Durham & Associates, P.C. Suite 1750 950 17th Street Denver, CO 80202

Dear Mr. Keatinge:

This is a response to your letter of December 1, 1987, making this agency to clarify your understanding of 49 CFR S571.7(e). That section reads in part as follows:

Combining new and used components. When a new cab is used in the assembly of a truck, the truck will be considered newly manufactured ...unless the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) (as a minimum) of the assembled vehicle are not new, and at least two of these components were taken from the same vehicle.

You referred to my August 11, 1987 letter to Mr. Ernest Parmer, and expressed concern that my having discussed only one aspect of S571.7(e) in that letter has led to some confusion. My letter to Mr. Parmer states that 'a modified school bus or truck is n ot considered a 'new' vehicle if, at a minimum, the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) are not new and at least two of these three listed components are taken from the same used vehicle.' You stated that while my statement is 'correct,' my response did not address the first clause of this provision: 'When a new cab is used In the assembly of a truck...' you asserted that, a bus should not be considered 'new' unless a new body is attached to the chassis.' Your assertion is correct with respect to S5 71.7(e), but there is another regulation that specifies a vehicle is 'new' if an old body is combined with a new chassis.

By its own terms, S571.7(e) applies only in situations where a new body is combined with either (1) mixed new and used chassis components, or (2) used components from different vehicles. You were correct, then, in asserting that 5571.7(e) applied only to situations involving a new body. For the purposes of the Parmer letter, it Has understood between Mr. Parmer and a member of my staff that the bus bodies in question were new, so that letter did not purport to address the question of combining an old bu s body with new and or/used chassis Components.

Many of our prior interpretations have stated that a person who adds a new or used body to a new chassis to produce a school bus is considered the manufacturer of a new school bus, and must certify that the new bus conforms with all applicable safety sta ndards, just as every other school bus manufacturer must. In this case, the new chassis is an incomplete vehicle. 'Incomplete vehicle' is defined in 19 CFR 5568.3 as:

an assemblies consisting, as a minimum, of a frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing o perations, other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed vehicle.

When a new bus chassis is used to produce a vehicle, the person who adds a body - even an old body - is a final-stage manufacturer, within the meaning of 49 CFR 5568.3. Final-Stage manufacturers are required to certify that the completed vehicle conforms with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards in effect on the date of manufacture. The date of manufacture for these buses cannot be earlier than the date on which the chassis manufacturer completed its work on the chassis and cannot be la ter than the date the final-stage manufacturer completed its manufacturing operations. See 49 CFR S567.5, Requirements for Manufacturers of Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages.

Note that neither S571.7(e) nor Part 568 would require a person to certify that a school bus complies with all applicable safety standards, if that person merely rebuilds or replaces an engine, drive axle, or transmission in a bus, or if that person plac es a used bus body on a used chassis.

I hope you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel December 4, 1987

Erika Z. Jones, Esq. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration United States Department of Transportation 700 Seventh Street Washington, D.C. 20890

Re: Your letter of August 11, 1987 to Ernest Farmer

Dear Ms. Jones:

This letter is to confirm my understanding of 49 CFR S571.7(e) as interpreted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ('NHTSA'). In your letter of August 11, 1987 to Mr. Ernest Farmer, the Director of Pupil Transportation for the Tennessee Department of Education, you twice (at the top of page 2 and in the first paragraph of section 3 on page 3) make reference to the portion of 5571.7(e) which says that a bus will not be considered 'new' if the engine, transmission and drive train are not new and at least two of these components are from the same vehicle.

While this statement is a correct statement of part of the test under 5571.7(e) it does not address the part of the regulation which states that a truck (or, here, a bus) will be considered new only if the cab (or, here, a body? is replaced. The descrip tion of the regulation contained in your letter may have been in response to an Inquiry which assumed the replacement of the bus body (as did FR Docket No. 85-22646).

On Friday, December 4, 1987 I discussed this point with Joan Tilghman of your office. She confirmed what appears to be the clear reading of S571.7(e) to the effect that the replacement of the engine, transmission and/or rear axle only becomes an issue 'W hen a new cab (here, body) is used in the assembly of a truck (here, bus)...". In other words, a bus should not be considered 'new' unless a new body is attached to the chassis.

Unfortunately, there has been some confusion as a result of the letter indicates that the NHTSA is changing the regulation to provide in effect that whenever a new or rebuilt engine, transmission or rear axle is put in a bus the bus must be brought into conformity with current standards regardless of whether the body has been replaced. As discussed above, and as confirmed by Ms. Tilghman, I don't think that was your intention.

If the foregoing accurately describes the NHTSA's position, I would appreciate your confirming this to me so that we can correct the misunderstanding. Until this ambiguity is resolved, my client is in a difficult position inasmuch as the governmental age ncies are unsure how to proceed. Your prompt response would therefore be greatly appreciated.

If there are any questions in this regard or If I am incorrect in my understanding, I would appreciate your contacting me as soon as possible. Thank you for your consideration in this regard.

Sincerely,

Robert R. Keatinge