ID: nht90-4.99

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 27, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Paul G. Scully -- Vice President, Peterson Manufacturing Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-14-90 to Jackson Rice from Paul G. Scully (OCC 5245)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of August 14, 1990 (postmarked September 19), asking that we notify the police department of Tuscon, Arizona, that reflex reflectors are not required to have SAE markings "in order to be perfectly legal reflectors." You a lso state that another agency of the Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration's Office of Motor Carrier Safety, "still retain(s) these marking requirements in their publication" and appeal for "a uniform set of regulations between the two government agencies involved."

Because this matter has not been brought to our attention by the police department of Tuscon, we are responding directly to you so that you may furnish copies to whomever you deem it most advisable.

We confirm your understanding that 49 CFR 571.108, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, does not require that reflex reflectors bear SAE markings. Although they must meet the requirements of SAE Standard J594f, Reflex Reflectors, January 1977, there is no requirement that they bear SAE markings according to SAE Recommended Practice J759c, Lighting Identification Code, January 1975.

Although the Federal Highway Administration's Office of Motor Carrier Safety (OMCS) has amended most of its vehicle lighting regulations to conform to Standard No. 108, up until now that agency has required, under 49 CFR 393.26(c), that reflectors bear ( among other markings), the letters "SAE-A". However, OMCS has informed us that it will amend its regulation to conform to Standard No. 108 as early as convenient, and in the meantime will notify its field office that the marking requirement is no longer to be enforced. Therefore, failure to mark reflectors with the letters "SAE-A" may be inconsistent with current OMCS requirements, but it is not a failure to comply with Standard No. 108.

Further, to the extent that Arizona law itself may require marking of reflectors with the letters "SAE-A", that provision is inconsistent with Standard No. 108 and is subject to the preemption provisions of 15 U.S.C. 1392(d). Under the preemption provis ions, no State or political subdivision thereof may enact or continue in effect a standard covering the same aspect of performance as a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, unless it is identical to the Federal standard. Thus, any State or local requi rement for SAE markings on reflex reflectors is one that is not identical to Standard No. 108, and subject to the preemption provisions.

Other than the reference to OMCS regulations, we do not know under what

authority the Tuscon police are acting. Certainly, a local official cannot enforce a Federal standard per se. If Arizona law requires vehicles in interstate commerce to comply with regulations of the OMCS, and the Tuscon police are attempting to enforc e State law, we conclude that the State law is subject to the preemption provisions discussed above, and that such enforcement action has been precluded under Federal law.

I hope that this responds to your concerns.

ID: nht91-1.1

DATE: 01/01/91 EST

FROM: Jessie M. Flautt

TO: Steve Kratzske -- NHTSA Office

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-26-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Jessie M. Flautt (A37; Std. 202; VSA 108(a)(2)(4))

TEXT:

I am writing to your department to obtain authorization to reduce the size of the headrests in a 1991 automobile; These reductions would still meet the federal standards set in 1987. I am not able to drive a 1991 car due to the increased length and width of the headrests in the past few years. The newer cars are designed for an average man with average vision: however, I am under five feet-two and an legally blind in one eye. Therefore, I cannot find a car that does not impede my field of vision. Consequently, my driving safety and that of drivers and passengers in other cars is in jeopardy as I have a limited view of side and rear objects.

I would be the sole driver of the car and would thus not be endangering anyone else by a reduction of the headrests: in fact, I would be greatly improving my own safety as well as that of persons in other vehicles if I were allowed to increase my field of vision by reducing the size of the headrests.

I apppreciate the time and interest you expended in speaking to me on the telephone. It is a wonderful feeling to know that we can indeed reach a helpful person in our huge goverment organization.

(Stetson's Auto Shops, 7414 Ashcroft, Houston, Texas, would be doing this work.)

ID: nht91-1.10

DATE: January 3, 1991

FROM: Gene Schlanger -- President, ROC Capital, Inc.

TO: Taylor Vinson -- Legal Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-26-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Gene Schlanger (A37; Std. 108)

TEXT:

We have developed a lighted sign (frame size 4 inches high x 23 inches wide) for Automobiles, with letters 2 inches high x 18 inches wide, that are illuminated by LEDs (light emitting diodes). Messages can be customized by the operator via a small, keyboard and stored in the key- board for instant recall by the driver or passenger. The sign can be designed to scroll messages from left to right along the face of the sign or if that is deemed legally inappropriate, the messages can remain stationary on the sign, with the changes in the message that just fade in and fade out. The sign is designed to be mounted inside the car, either on a rear or side window. If that is deemed legally inappropriate the sign can be designed to be placed outside on the roof of the auto, as would commonly seen lighted pizza signs on delivery cars, etc. ie: Domino's. The LEDS donot project beam, as would a headlight or directional light and donot flash, but instead allow the message to be read in day or night by passengers in other cars, or persons on the street, who are either to the rear or side, depending upon where the sign is mounted. We plan to program the sign, so that whenever it is turned on, it will automatically show an initial message saying: DRIVE SAFELY AND PLEASE DONOT TAILGATE. This sign would be sold to the general public.

We would appreciate receiving your opinion, as to whether a sign of this nature is within federal and/or state regulations, which may be applicable.

I look forward to hearing from you and to receiving any other information you feel may be helpful.

ID: nht91-1.11

DATE: January 4, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Edward R. Heussner -- Consultant, Comp U Tence

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-16-90 to Paul Jackson Rice from Edward R. Heussner (OCC 5107)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking for this agency's interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 219 Windshield Zone Intrusion (49 CFR S571.219). You posed two questions; the first asked about the meaning of "penetration" for the area of the windshield below the "protected zone," and the second asked whether engineering judgment in lieu of crash testing, as described in S5 of Standard No. 219 would be "acceptable to the agency." Your questions are responded to below.

In your letter, you noted that section S5 provides that, when a specified crash test is conducted, "no such part of a vehicle (certain parts of the vehicle outside the occupant compartment) shall penetrate the inner surface of that portion of the windshield, within the (Daylight Opening), below the protected zone defined in S6.2. (Emphasis added.) You asked whether, in order for "penetration" to have occurred, does some vehicle component have to go through the windshield or does obscuring of the glass or glass-plastic constitute a penetration.

It is our opinion that, in order for penetration of the inner surface of the windshield to occur, some vehicle component from outside the occupant compartment must break through the windshield. According to Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (published by Merriam-Webster Inc.), "penetrate" means: to pass into or through, to enter by overcoming resistance: PIERCE, to gain entrance to. Thus, under section S5, when the specified test is conducted, certain vehicle components from outside the occupant compartment must not pass through or pierce the inner surface of the windshield. If the windshield glass or glass-plastic were merely pushed inward by such a vehicle component, without the component breaking through the glass or glass-plastic, the inner surface of the windshield would not have been penetrated.

Regarding your second question asking whether engineering judgment in lieu of crash testing, as described in standard No. 219 would be "acceptable to the agency," please note the following. Each of this agency's safety standards specifies the test conditions and procedures that this agency will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard. NHTSA precisely follows each of the specified test procedures and conditions when conducting its compliance testing. However, the Safety Act does not require a manufacturer to test its products only in the manner specified in the relevant safety standard, or even to test the products at all. A manufacturer may choose any means of evaluating its products to determine whether the vehicle or item of equipment complies with the requirements of the safety standards, provided, however, that the manufacturer assures

that the vehicle or equipment will comply with the safety standards when tested by the agency according to the procedures specified in the standard.

If the agency testing shows an apparent noncompliance exists with a vehicle or item of equipment, the manufacturer is asked to show the basis for its certification that the vehicle or equipment complies with the relevant safety standard or standards. If in fact there is a noncompliance, the manufacturer is subject to civil penalties under the Safety Act unless it can establish that it exercised due care, in the design and manufacture of the product and in the checks (through actual testing, computer simulation, engineering analyses, or other means) to ensure compliance, but nevertheless did not have reason to know that the vehicle or item of equipment did not in fact comply with the safety standards.

Please note that this agency has long said that it is unable to judge what efforts would constitute "due care" in advance of the actual circumstances in which a noncompliance occurs. What constitutes "due care" in a particular case depends on all relevant facts, including such things as the limitations of current technology, the availability of test equipment, the size of the manufacturer, and, above all, the diligence exercised by the manufacturer.

You should also note that, while the exercise of "due care" may relieve a manufacturer of liability for civil penalties in connection with the manufacture and sale of noncomplying vehicles or equipment, it does not relieve a manufacturer of the responsibility to notify purchasers of the noncompliance and remedy the noncompliance without charge to the purchasers, if either the manufacturer or this agency determines that vehicles or items of equipment do not comply with all applicable safety standards.

I hope this explanation is helpful. Please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or would like some additional information on this subject.

ID: nht91-1.12

DATE: January 4, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Mark G. Southern

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-2-90 to Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA from Mark G. Southern (OCC 5281)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking about the application of Safety Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, to the child harness you wish to produce. You indicated in telephone conversations with Ms. Fujita of my staff that you do not object to our making publicly available the cover letter you sent, and the following description of your device.

The child restraint system you plan to manufacture is a harness that consists of upper torso restraints (belts that would pass over each shoulder of the child), and a lower torso restraint (a frontal shield). The system would be installed in a vehicle by use of a strap that wraps around the vehicle's seat back (attached to the strap are the system's shoulder belts). There is a buckle attached to the system's shield that attaches to the vehicle's seat lap belt. The child restraint system has no crotch belt.

Your first question is whether Standard 213 applies to your product, even if your device "is not the primary restraint." The answer is yes. Standard 213 defines "child restraint system" to mean "any device except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less." Your harness meets the standard's definition of a child restraint system and it must therefore meet all applicable requirements of the standard.

You ask specifically about the effect of paragraph S5.3.1 of Standard 213. That paragraph states: "Each add-on child restraint system shall have no means designed for attaching the system to a vehicle seat cushion and vehicle seat back and no component (except belts) that is designed to be inserted between the vehicle seat cushion and vehicle seat back." (Emphasis added.)

(The language emphasized above should read: "seat cushion or vehicle seat back." The word "and" was substituted for "or" through a typographical error that occurred in a January 1988 amendment of Standard 213 (53 FR 1783). The agency's intent was to use the word "or." Your letter has alerted us to the error, and we plan to correct it shortly.)

Since your restraint is designed to attach to a vehicle seat back (by means of the strap which wraps around the vehicle seat back), the restraint would not meet S5.3.1. NHTSA adopted the prohibition against attaching child restraints to vehicle seat backs because the agency was concerned that a vehicle seat back would not be able to withstand the additional load on it from an attached child seat in a crash. It appears

that your harness design would add a load on the vehicle seat back in a crash, and is therefore the type of design that is intended to be prohibited by S5.3.1 of the standard.

We also would like to point out that your design does not appear to comply with paragraph S5.4.3.4(b) of Standard 213. That section provides that each child harness shall "provide lower torso restraint by means of lap and crotch belt." Your restraint does not include a crotch belt to restrain the child's lower torso. You would have to modify the design of the harness to include a crotch belt in order for your harness to comply with S5.4.3.4.

There are a number other requirements in Standard 213 that apply to your harness, including the belts, buckles and webbing requirements (S5.4), the labeling requirements (S5.5 and S5.6), and the flammability resistance requirement (S5.7). In addition to these requirements, you would have to determine that the harness complies with all the performance requirements set forth in S5 of the standard. Once you have made such a determination, you are required to certify that each harness you manufacture satisfies all applicable requirements of Standard 213.

You should also be aware that you will be a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment if you manufacture your harness for sale. As such, you will be subject to the requirements of SS151-159 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed) concerning the recall and remedy of products that either do not comply with an applicable safety standard or have defects related to motor vehicle safety. If it were determined by either you or the agency that your harness did not comply with a requirement of Standard 213 or that it had a defect related to motor vehicle safety, you would have to notify all purchasers of the noncomplying or defective product and remedy the noncompliance or defect free of charge.

If you decide to manufacture the harness for sale, you should also be aware of 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification (copy enclosed). This regulation requires a manufacturer of child restraint systems to submit its name, address and a brief description of the child restraints it manufactures to NHTSA within 30 days of the date the restraints are first manufactured.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have any further questions. We are returning the sketches you sent to us under separate cover, as you requested.

ID: nht91-1.13

DATE: January 4, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Richard Cahalan -- Director of Core Services, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Executive Office of Human Services, Department of Mental Retardation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to 49 CFR Chapter V (10-1-89 Edition) Part 567 (text omitted); Also attached to letter dated 8-2-90 from O.W. Harrell, Jr. to Office of the Chief Counsel (OCC 5073); Also attached to letter dated 7-25-90 from G.C. Shifflett to O.W. Harell (Harrell) Jr.; Also attached to letter dated 9-4-86 from Erika Z. Jones to Vincent Foster; Also attached to letter dated 11-26-79 from Frank Berndt to W.G. Milby

TEXT:

This responds to Mr. Oscar Harrell's letter requesting information about Federal regulations concerning the modification of vehicles to accommodate mentally retarded individuals. According to that letter, in response to conversations about this issue with Mr. George Shifflett of this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, Mr. Harrell received copies of interpretation letters from my office to Mr. Vincent Foster dated September 4, 1986 and to Mr. W.G. Milby dated November 26, 1979. These letters express NHTSA's policy concerning modifications of vehicles to accommodate the special needs of handicapped individuals and the requirement in S 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibiting commercial businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any elements of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Given the public interest against restricting the mobility of the handicapped, it is the agency's policy, depending on the particular situation, to consider certain violations of that section as technical ones justified by public need.

In a telephone conversation with Marvin Shaw of my staff, you explained that a van conversion company modified new Dodge Maxi-vans for your agency before they were purchased. Among the steps taken by the converter to accommodate handicapped individuals are the removal of the "top," the addition of a new "bottom," and the installation of a wheelchair lift. According to Mr. Harrell's letter, the converter, when contacted last year, stated that the vehicles, after being converted, comply with State and Federal regulations. You indicated, however, that the converter failed to certify that the vans, as altered, comply with Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations to you. I apologize for the delay in our response.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. Each manufacturer is required to certify that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

Based on your letter and the telephone conversation with my staff, it appears that the van converter would be considered an "alterer" for purposes of of Part 567, Certification (copy enclosed). Section 567.7 defines "alterer" as

A person who alters a vehicle that has previously been certified in accordance with S567.4 or S567.5, other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, or who alters the vehicle in such a manner that its stated weight ratings are no longer valid, before the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale...

As an alterer, section 567.7 requires the vehicle converter to do the following:

(1) Supplement the certification label affixed by the original manufacturer by affixing an additional label stating that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This supplemental label must state the name of the alterer and the month and the year in which the alterations were completed (see S567.7(a));

(2) Provide the modified values for the gross vehicle weight ratings or any of the gross axle weight ratings of the vehicle as altered if they are different from those shown on the original certification label (see S567.7(b)); and

(3) Provide the type classification, if the vehicle as altered has a different type classification from that shown on the original certification (see S567.7(c).

If the converter did not comply with these requirements, then it did not fulfill its certification responsibilities under Part 567. From what you have written to us, we assume that is the case. However, this does not in itself mean that the vehicles, as altered, do not comply with applicable safety standards or are otherwise unsafe. If you believe that the conversion of these vehicles poses a safety problem, you should contact this agency's Office of Enforcement and explain the specific safety problem.

If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht91-1.14

DATE: January 5, 1991

FROM: Chris Lawrence -- Chang & Lawrence

TO: August L. Burgett -- Safety Standards Engineer, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-21-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Chris Lawrence (A37; Std. 108; VSA 108(a)); Also attached to letter dated 8-17-89 from Stephen P. Wood to Alan S. Eldahr (VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

I got your name from Mr. Patrick Maguire, Director of the Minnesota Trade Office in Taiwan. He said you might be able to answer questions I have concerning safety regulations for automobiles in the United States.

I am considering producing a new product, an electronic sign board for cars, that would display messages on the outside of the vehicle. The driver would select one of several pre-programmed messages by voice command; a voice recognition unit on the sign board would interpret the command and initiate display of the appropriate pre-programmed message. A voice output unit would confirm that the right message was selected by announcing the fact on a voice output unit.

My questions concern safety regulations that would restrict the use of lights to form messages on the outside of cars or from a window. The "Federal Register" (Standard 108 of Part 571 of Chapter 49) explains what lamps are specifically required on motor vehicles, and states that additional lamps that impair the effectiveness of the required lamps are prohibited. What is meant by "impairing the effectiveness of the required lamps"? And are there restrictions about what can be mounted in a window of a vehicle? Your assistance is greatly appreciated.

ID: nht91-1.15

DATE: January 8, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Oliver M. Sprangers -- A. T. Kearney, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-20-90 from Harry B. Skinner to Olivier M. Sprangers (OCC 5444); Also attached to letter dated 6-27-90 from Olivier M. Sprangers to James T. Brooks

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to Mr. James Travis Brooks of the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. Because you had questions about one of this agency's regulations, I have been asked to respond to your letter.

Your letter concerns a product that was developed by your client. Although no description of the product was provided, you state that it was manufactured so that it "fits within" 49 CFR S571.125 Warning devices. Your first question asked for advice on any approval process or other procedures that must be followed before your client's product may be sold in the United States. As will be more fully explained below, this agency cannot "approve" your client's product.

Some background information on U. S. requirements in this area may be helpful. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; the Safety Act) gives this agency the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 125, Warning Devices (49 CFR S571.125; copy enclosed). When the agency has issued an applicable safety standard, section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) provides that no person shall "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicles or equipment are in conformity with the applicable standard. NHTSA has no authority under the Safety Act to approve, certify, or otherwise endorse any commercial product. Instead, section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) establishes a self-certification process under which every manufacturer is required to certify that each of its products meet all applicable Federal safety standards. Therefore, your client, the manufacturer of the product, must certify that it conforms to Standard No. 125.

Section 108(b)(2) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(2)) requires the manufacturer of the warning device to exercise "due care" in certifying that it conforms to Standard No. 125. To comply with these legal obligations, I suggest that you carefully examine the requirements of Standard No. 125 and determine if your client's product conforms with those requirements. As you will see, Standard No. 125 contains specific requirements related to a warning device's material, container, labeling, configuration, color, reflectivity, luminance, stability, and durability.

You should be aware that the Vehicle Safety Act establishes a civil penalty of $1,000 for each violation of a safety standard and a maximum penalty of $800,000 for a series of violations. In addition, the Act requires manufacturers to remedy their products if they fail to comply with any applicable safety standards.

Regarding other procedures that must be followed before your client's product may be sold in the United States, 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification (a copy of which is enclosed) requires manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment to which a motor vehicle safety standard applies to submit to this agency identifying information and a description of the items they produce.

You next ask about the term "collapsible" in Standard No. 125. You state that, unlike the product offered by many manufacturers that fold into a long thin package, your client's product only folds to the extent that the support for the triangle may be turned and brought into the same flat surface as the triangle. Since this would result in a flat, triangular thin package, you ask whether this storage configuration would still be within the meaning of the term "collapsible."

Although the term "collapsibility" is used in S5.2.1(b) of Standard No. 125, the requirements for storing warning devices are set forth at S5.1.2. If your product complies with the requirements of S5.1.2, it is not required to meet any additional requirements to be "collapsible" for the purposes of Standard No. 125.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht91-1.16

DATE: January 14, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Thomas D. Turner -- Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter from Frank A. Berndt to W.G. Milby; Also attached to letter dated 3-18-77 from Frank Berndt to W.G. Milby; Also attached to letter dated 8-16-90 from Thomas D. Turner to Paul J. Rice (OCC 5110)

TEXT:

This responds to your inquiry concerning the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 221; School Bus Body Joint Strength, to specific joints attaching the floor and stepwell of a school bus. Your letter included a blueprint of the floor and stepwell structure of a large school bus, and asked whether the joints joining the stepwell to the Number 1 and 2 floor sections of the bus are required to comply with the joint strength requirement of Standard No. 221.

Based on the information provided in your letter, I conclude that the joints attaching the floor sections to the stepwell are required to comply with the joint strength requirement contained in S5 of Standard 221. I also conclude that the joints in the stepwell are subject to that requirement.

As you are aware, S4 of the Standard defines body panel, as:

"...a body component used on the exterior or interior surface to enclose the bus' occupant space."

S4 also defines "body panel joint" as:

"...the area of contact or close proximity between the edges of a body panel and another body component, excluding spaces designed for ventilation or another functional purpose, and excluding doors, windows, and maintenance access panels."

S5 of the Standard requires that body panel joints must comply with the strength requirement. The floor panels and stepwells of a bus are body components which come within the definition of body panel, as they serve to enclose the occupant space of the bus. The joints attaching the floor panels to the stepwell are body panel joints, since they represent the area of contact between the edges of a body panel (either a floor panel or the stepwell) and another body component (either the stepwell or a floor panel), and do not represent a space designed for ventilation or another functional purpose, or a door, window, or maintenance access panel.

I note that the joints attaching the stepwell to the floor sections are identical to, and in the same horizontal plane as, the joints used elsewhere in the floor assembly. I also note that the stepwell assembly described in your letter is also subject to the joint strength

requirement. The various portions of the stepwell serve to enclose the occupant space, and are therefore body components which come within the definition of body panel. Therefore, the joints attaching those portions of the stepwell which enclose the occupant space are body panel joints subject to the requirements of the Standard.

Your letter argues that the stepwell joints are exempted from the definition of "body panel joint" by virtue of their being designed for another functional purpose. You do not, however, state the purpose. I disagree with this assertion. As noted above, S4 of the Standard exempts spaces designed for ventilation or another functional purpose from the definition of body panel joint. The agency's longstanding criterion for determining the applicability of this exemption has been whether the body panel joint in question is considered to have a function in enclosing the occupant space. See, March 18, 1977 letter to W.G. Milby (copy attached).

In this case, the stepwell clearly has the function of enclosing occupant space. I note that, by enclosing occupant space at a location which provides access to the front door, the stepwell occupies a critical location in relation to an important exit. Because of its location, the integrity of the stepwell in a crash is as important as the integrity of any other component comprising the floor.

In addition, you argue that the joints between the floor sections and the stepwell need not comply with S5 because they are below the level of the floor. This argument is based on your interpretation of an April 26, 1976 letter from this office to W.G. Milby at Blue Bird which states that components located entirely below the floor level are not subject to the Standard.

That letter did not intend to exclude from the Standard all portions of a bus located below the plane formed by the primary floorline of the bus. The exclusion of those portions below the floor level was instead predicated on the assumption that there is a body panel (i.e., a floor panel) at floor level which encloses the occupant space, and which is located between the occupant space and that portion of the bus excluded from the standard. I note that the floor level of a bus is not a single continuous plane; it is determined at any particular point by the plane of the panel that comprises the floor at that point. Therefore, I do not agree that the stepwell-to-floor panel joints indicated in your letter are below the floor level or are excluded from the standard's joint strength requirements.

I hope you have found this information useful. Please do not hesitate to contact J. Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions.

ID: nht91-1.17

DATE: January 14, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Paul A. Shaw -- Superintendent, Florence County School District Five

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-15-90 from Paul A. Shaw to PaulJ. Rice (OCC 5363)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of October 15, 1990. In your letter you correctly state that a van designed for carrying 11 or more persons, including a driver, and sold for transporting students to and from school or school-related events is considered a school bus under federal law. You then asked, "(d)oes federal law prohibit a school district from using a fifteen-passenger van that does not meet federal safety standards for school buses to transport students to athletic events, extra-curricular activities, and field trips?"

The answer to your question is no. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all new school buses. It is a violation of Federal law for any person to sell as a school bus any new vehicle that does not comply with all school bus safety standards. On the other hand, without violating any provision of Federal law, a school district may purchase or use a vehicle to transport school children, even if the vehicle does not comply with Federal school bus regulations. This is so because the individual States have authority over the activities of a retail purchaser or user of a school bus. Therefore, to determine whether your school district may use noncomplying vans, you must look to state law. In addition, using noncomplying vans as a school bus could result in increased liability in the event of an accident. You might want to consult your attorney and insurance company to discuss this matter.

I must emphasize NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students. I encourage your school district to give your most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting students in vehicles that do not comply with these regulations.

Your letter also indicates that your school district purchased a "standard, fifteen-passenger 1990 Dodge van to transport students to various school-related events." I assume that by the term standard you are indicating that the van has not been certified as complying with all regulations applicable to school buses. If this van was purchased new, and if the dealer knew of your intended use, the dealer may have violated federal law. If you believe that you were sold a noncomplying vehicle, please contact NHTSA'S Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, at the address given above.

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