ID: 1982-1.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/25/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Iveco Trucks

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

TWO VERSIONS OF NHTSA LETTER:

Eldridge G. Pentheny, Jr. Administration Engineer Iveco Trucks of North America, Inc. 1730 Walton Road P.O. Box 1102 Blue Bell, Pennsylvania 19422

Dear Mr. Pentheny:

This responds to your letter asking whether your auxiliary heater toggle switch design meets the identification requirements of Standard No. 101-80, Controls and Displays.

By way of background information, I would point out that the agency does not give advance approvals of vehicles or equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility on the manufacturer to determine whether its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. The following interpretation only represents the agency's opinion based on the information provided in your letter.

On the top of the switch is the fan symbol specified by Table 1 of the standard and an arrow pointed upward. When the top of the switch is depressed, the heater fan is activated to recirculate cab air without heating it. On the bottom of the switch is a flame symbol and an arrow pointing downward. When the bottom of the switch is depressed, the heater, including the heater fan, is activated. As explained below, use of the flame symbol for the heater does not meet the identification requirements of Standard No. 101-80.

Section S5.2.2 states:

Identification shall be provided for each function of ...any heating and air conditioning system control, and for the extreme positions of any such control that regulates a function over a quantitative range. If this identification is not specified in Tables 1 or 2, it shall be in word form unless color coding is used. if color coding is used to identify the extreme positions of a temperature control, the hot extreme shall be identified by the color red and the cold - [NO FURTHER TEXT AVAILABLE]

Dear Mr. Pentheny:

This responds to your letter asking whether your auxiliary heater toggle switch design meets the identification requirements of Standard No. 101-80, Controls and Displays.

By way of background information, I would point out that the agency does not give advance approvals of vehicles or equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act pt be identified by words or color coding. I will separately discuss the identification required for the two functions of the auxiliary heater toggle switch.

Depressing the top of the switch activates the fan in order to recirculate air without heating it. This function may be characterized either as recirculation of air or as an on-off switch for the fan. Under the latter characterization, the fan symbol should be used since Table 1 specifies that symbol for a heating and/or air conditioning fan. Thus, the identification on the top of the toggle switch meets the requirements of Standard No. 101-80.

Depressing the bottom of the toggle switch activates both the fan and the heater in order to circulate and heat air. Since neither Table 1 nor Table 2 specify identification for the heating function, it must be in word form. (As explained below, color coding is not appropriate in this instance.) Use of the fan symbol in addition to words identifying the heating function is not necessary, even though the fan operates as part of the heating function, since there is no separate control for the fan. Since the bottom of the toggle switch does not identify the heating function by using words, it does not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 101-80.

In a telephone conversation with Edward Glancy of this office, you indicated that you desire to use the flame symbol for purposes of international harmonization, noting that is the symbol specified by ISO for heat. While Standard No. 101-80 specifies a number of other ISO symbols, it does not specify that symbol. Section S5.2.1(a) of the standard does permit the use of additional words or symbols for the purpose of clarity, so long as the words or symbols specified by the standard are used. Thus, you may use the ISO flame symbol if you also identify the bottom of the toggle switch by using words. Since you indicated that you are already producing the vehicles in question, we suggest that you consider simply adding a label with the words "AUX. HEAT" (or other identifying words) adjacent to the bottom of the toggle switch.

In the above-mentioned telephone conversation, you asked whether coloring the bottom of the toggle switch "red" would be considered color coding as that phrase is used in S5.2.2. The answer is no, since the use of any one color by itself does not constitute color coding. We interpret section S5.2.2 (quoted above) to require that color coding must be readily understandable. Although there may be other appropriate uses of color coding, the standard's example of using red and blue to identify the extreme positions of a temperature control is the only one that comes to mind. The use of red for the hot extreme is readily understood only when used in conjunction with blue for the cold extreme.

As you may know, it is the policy of this agency to both promote international harmonization and avoid unnecessary design restrictions. If you wish to produce vehicles using ISO symbols not specified by Standard No. 101-80, you may wish to consider filing a petition for rulemaking on that issue.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

September 8, 1981

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of Chief Counsel 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Attention: Mr. Frank Berndt

Subject: 49 CFR 571.101-80 Controls and Displays File: S.203.101

Dear Mr. Berndt:

IVECO Trucks of North America is installing an auxiliary heating system, which is completely independant of the standard heater, in some units of our vehicle line. Please find enclosed a drawing of the control switch that is used to activate the different auxiliary heater functions. The control button, when depressed in the upper mode, operates the fan only for recirculation of in cab air when the control button is depressed in the lower mode, the fan and heater are both activated.

Per FMVSS101-S5.21 (Identification) "Any hand operated control listed in column 1 of table that has a symbol designated in column 3 shall be identified by that symbol."

Per S5.2.2 "Identification shall be provided for each function of any automatic vehicle speed control and any heating and air conditioning system control...."

We believe the control button shown on the attached drawing meets both of the requirements as stated above, since the fan symbol applies to par. S.5.2.1 and the flame symbol applies to par. S.5.2.2.

Our only question relates to the "heat and fan" condition where only the ISO symbol for flame (the auxiliary heater is a flame burner type) is shown. We believe that since this is one multi-function switch, (off, fan on only, fan and heater on) another fan symbol in the lower section would be redundant although the fan must be operating when the flame is on.

Would you please confirm our opinion in this matter.

Respectfully yours,

Eldridge G. Pentheny, Jr. Administration Engineer

EGP:smt

Attachment

Eberspacker Auxiliary Heater Toggle Switch

Depress top of toggle switch to activate heater fan only to recirculate in cab air.

Depress bottom of toggle switch to activate both the heater and the heater fan.

ID: aiam4537

"Dear Mr. Schuld: This responds to your letter asking for informatio concerning the application of Federal safety standards to your manufacture of a jump seat that you said would be 'removable and able to be transferred from one truck to another.' I apologize for the delay in responding. Generally, Federal motor vehicle seating standards apply to motor vehicles prior to their first purchase by a consumer, and not to 'aftermarket' seating components added to a vehicle after such purchase. However, several of our safety standards could apply to your product if the seat is installed in a new vehicle prior to the vehicle's first sale to a consumer. Federal law would also affect your installation of the jump seat in new or used vehicles. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with our Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Instead, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed), each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the information provided in your letter. There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that is directly applicable to a removable jump seat sold directly to a consumer. Federal seating standards generally apply only to completed new motor vehicles and not to items of equipment such as a removable jump seat. However, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your jump seats contain a safety related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. If your product will be installed on a new vehicle prior to the vehicle's first sale to a consumer, then the manufacturer of the vehicle will have certain responsibilities relating to its obligation under the Safety Act to certify the new vehicle as meeting all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Federal standards for seating systems (Standard No. 207) and crash protection (Standard No. 208) apply to designated seating positions in new vehicles. While these standards do not apply to auxiliary seating accommodations (e.g., temporary or folding jump seats), the determination must be made whether your apparatus falls into this latter category and is thus excluded from coverage. Unfortunately, information provided in your letter did not describe your jump seat in sufficient detail for us to offer an opinion as to whether your particular seat is an auxiliary seating accommodation. Photographs or engineering diagrams of your product would assist us in determining whether the seat would be considered an auxiliary seating accommodation, and thus excluded from coverage under Standard Nos. 207 and 208 if installed on new vehicles. Another Federal standard to which the vehicle manufacturer must certify its vehicle as conforming is Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. This standard establishes flammability requirements that must be met by certain vehicle components including seat cushions and seat backs on any occupant seat installed in a new vehicle prior to the vehicle's first sale to a consumer. A manufacturer installing your jump seat on a new vehicle would thus be required to ensure that any seat cushion or seat back on your product conforms to the flammability resistance requirements of the standard. You should also be aware that there are statutory considerations that affect the installation of your jump seats in new and used vehicles. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act specifies: 'No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ...' This section requires manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair businesses (i.e., any person holding him or herself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation) installing the jump seat to ensure that the addition of the apparatus would not negatively affect the compliance of any component or design on a vehicle with applicable Federal safety standards. For example, the commercial entity must ensure that the addition of the jump seat does not degrade from the safety of existing seating or occupant protection systems on the vehicle. Section 109 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of 108. In summary, removable jump seats sold to motor vehicle owners as items of aftermarket equipment are not subject to any Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The seat could be subject to Federal standards for seating performance and occupant crash and flammability protection if it is installed on new vehicles prior to the vehicle's first sale. Commercial businesses are prohibited from installing the jump seat if the result renders inoperative the compliance of requisite safety components or designs with Federal safety standards. Individual owners, however, are not covered by 108(a)(2)(A) and may themselves install the jump seat in their vehicles without regard to the rendering inoperative prohibition of the Safety Act. To repeat, you as the equipment manufacturer would be obligated to recall and remedy seats that contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety, even if the seats were installed by vehicle owners themselves. Please feel free to contact us if you have further questions. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: nht87-2.59

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/28/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Anonymous (confidential)

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 12/1/83 letter from Frank Berndt to H. Nakaya, Mazda, Inc.

TEXT: Dear

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation as to whether a new mini-van you will introduce into the United States would be classified as a "multipurpose passenger vehicle" for the purposes of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and the Bumper Standard (49 CFR Part 581). In a June 5, 1987, phone conversation between members of my staff and your staff, it has stated that this interpretation should not address the question of how this vehicle would be classified for purposes of the avera ge fuel economy standards. You stated in your letter your opinion that this new mini-van should be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle, because it is constructed on a truck chassis.

Your opinion was based on the fact that both passenger and cargo versions of this mini-van have already been sold in Japan. You stated that the cargo version of the mini-van has a chassis that is substantially reinforced from the chassis used in the pass enger version of this mini-van. The version of the vehicle you will offer for sale in the United States will be a passenger version of the vehicle, but will use the chassis offered on the Japanese cargo version of this vehicle. Apparently, you do not pla n to offer any cargo versions of this vehicle for sale in the United States. However, you believe that the chassis that will be offered on the United States version of this mini-van is a truck chassis, and this should not result in the United States vers ion this vehicle being classified as a multipurpose vehicle for the purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and the bumper standard.

At the outset, I would like to make clear that both the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403), with respect to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and Title I of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S. C. 1915(c)), with respect to the bumper standard, place the responsibility for classifying a particular vehicle in the first instance on its manufacturer. For this reason, NHTSA does not approve, endorse, or certify any vehicle classifications before the manufacturer itself has classified a particular vehicle. This agency may reexamine the manufacturer's classification in the course of any enforcement actions. We will, however, tentatively state how we believe we would classify a vehicle for the purpose s of these standards. It is important for the manufacturer to be aware that these tentative statements are based entirely on the information provided to the agency by the manufacturer, and the tentative conclusions may change after the agency has had an opportunity to examine the vehicle itself.

A December 1, 1983, letter to Mr. Nakaya discusses how we would consider and apply the various factors to determine whether a vehicle should be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle by virtue of being constructed on a truck chassis. A copy of th at letter is enclosed for your information. Our position has not changed since this 1983 letter.

To briefly summarize the letter, the fact that a common chassis is used in a family of vehicles, one of which is classified as a truck, is evidence that the common chassis is a truck chassis. However, further evidence is needed to demonstrate that the ch assis has truck attributes. This further evidence might consist of information showing the chassis designed to be more suitable for heavy duty commercial operation than a conventional passenger car chassis, which you stated is the case for the chassis on this new vehicle. The 1983 letter makes clear that NHTSA will examine the classification of your new vehicle as a multipurpose passenger vehicle more carefully than other such classifications, since no truck version of this vehicle will be offered for s ale in the United States. However, at that time and assuming that your statements about the reinforcement of the chassis are accurately it appears to us that this vehicle is constructed on a truck chassis. Accordingly, the vehicle could be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle for the purposes of the bumper and safety standards. The version of this letter that has been placed in our public docket, together with your letter to me, have all information identifying you and your company deleted therefrom. Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

(see 12/1/83 NHTSA letter to Mazda, Inc.)

12/22/86

Dear Ms. Jones:

This letter serves to request an interpretation of Part 571.3 Definitions; "Multipurpose Passenger Vehicle (MPV)" and the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Saving Act Pub.L. 92-513 USC 1901-1991.

Mitsubishi Motors Corporation (MMC) plans to introduce a Colt/Mirage Station Wagon in the 1988 model year. We request that NHTSA treat our letter as confidential since the disclosure of our future product plans could cause serious competitive harm. MMC b elieves this wagon should be classified as a MPV for the following reasons:

The Colt/Mirage Station Wagon is a small wagon which will be identical to the Mirage Van sold in the Japanese market in the following respects:

The Mirage Van is a commercial vehicle and has a truck chassis as follows:

(1) The chassis of the Mirage Van is reinforced from that of the Mirage Sedan for commerical use in the Japanese market.

The components reinforced include the following: - The rear suspension is changed from independent to rigid.

- The rear floow pan and longitudinal members are changed and strengthened for commercial load support.

(2) As the result of such reinforcement, the gross vehicle weight of the Mirage Van in the Japanese market increases 300kg as follows:

Mirage Van 1525kg

Mirage Sedan 1225kkg

(5) the Mirage Van has other commercial features as follows:

- The flat cargo floor extends from the folded rear seat back to the tailgate.

- The end of the cargo floor has no stepped up crossrail. This makes loading and unloading of cargo convenient.

- The roof is raised 40mm from the sedan for cargo capacity.

Since the chassis of Colt/Mirage Station Wagon is the same as that of the Mirage Van, we believe the Colt/Mirage Station Wagon has a truck chassis and can be considered a MPV.

Please inform us in a timely manner whether our interpreatation is correct.

If you have any question, please contact me or Hiroshi Kato at (313) 353-5444.

Sincerely,

ID: aiam0870

Dear Mr. Morton: This is in reply to your letter of September 28, 1972, concerning th application of Paragraph S5.2.2 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials.' You ask whether, in testing automotive interior fabrics, test specimens 'must be burned in warp and filling directions only, or does it also include testing in the face-down (inverted) positions?' As you point out, under the standard test specimens for each component are to be tested 'so as to provide the most adverse results.' This means that the relevant test result is the most adverse one achieved in any horizontal orientation, either upward- or downward-facing. How you determine which positioning of the test specimen produces the most adverse results is within your own discretion.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4281

Dear Mr. Mathieson: This is in reply to your letters to Francis Armstrong, Robert Williams and Taylor Vinson, all of this agency. I regret the delay in this reply. In summary, Thomas wishes to mount a body of its construction to a 'General Motors chassis model; G31303, certified by G.M. to have a 10,000 1lbs. maximum GVWR .' Tw prototypes have been operating. In testing for compliance with the frontal impact requirements of Standard No. 301, the rate of fuel leakage from a pinched or broken fuel line greatly exceeded the amount permitted by the standard. The test conducted by Thomas used sandbags to simulate occupant loading, and the impact velocity was reported to be 30.4 m.p.h. You have asked the following four questions:; '1. Does the result of the frontal barrier crash test with th discovered fuel leak constitute a safety defect?'; '2. Does the result of the frontal barrier crash test with th discovered fuel leak constitute an apparent or alleged noncompliance with FMVSS 301 requirement?'; The result of the frontal barrier crash test do not constitute a alleged or apparent noncompliance with Standard No. 301 as the impact velocity exceeded the 30 m.p.h. maximum test requirement. In addition, the vehicle's test weight in your test exceeded the test weight specified in S7.1.6(b) of the standard. Further, those results do not constitute a safety related defect regardless of the use of the vehicle. For NHTSA to find a safety related defect at 30.4 m.p.h. would be the equivalent of imposing a new standard without following Administrative Procedure Act requirements for rulemaking.; However, in our view, Thomas could not in good faith certify complianc of the completed bus with the 30 m.p.h. requirements if there was a failure when a correctly loaded bus was tested at 30.4 m.p.h and no counterbalancing data showing passes in other tests. Had NHTSA conducted a test at 30.4 m.p.h. and found a failure, it would have proceeded to conduct another test in accordance with the specifications of Standard No. 301 and test at a speed slightly less than 30 m.p.h. and with a Part 572 dummy in the driver's seat.; >>>3. 'What is NHTSA's interpretation of the correct vehicle tes weight for FMVSS 301 certification testing of school buses and non school buses for vehicles in the under and up to 10,000 lbs.' class and equipped with seat belts required to comply with FMVSS 208?'<<<; The test weight is set forth in paragraph S7.1.6(b) of Standard No 301. That section provides that a 'bus with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less is loaded to its unloaded vehicle weight, plus the necessary test dummies as specified in S6., plus 300 pounds or its rated cargo load and luggage capacity weight, whichever is less,....'; >>>4. 'If Thomas Built Buses performs a certification test to th requirements of FMVSS 301 with a similar vehicle (equipped with required seat belts which are required to comply with FMVSS 208) at a test weight as noted by GM (approximately 7,500 pounds) and the results show full compliance, what is the legal status or implication of completing and offering for sale this type of vehicle at a GVWR of up to 10,000 lbs. and indicating that it complies with FMVSS 301 on the basis of a successful test at the lower GVWR.'<<<; This question cannot be answered because the facts stated in you question appear to be incorrect. Our review of the documentation you enclosed shows that GM has rated the incomplete vehicle at 10,000 pounds GVWR, rather than at approximately 7,500 pounds GVWR, as stated in your letter. GM has, however, specified the maximum unloaded vehicle weight as 6866 pounds, and stated that the completed vehicle will comply if its unloaded vehicle weight does not exceed this amount. It has also stated that the maximum unloaded vehicle weight plus 634 pounds (which, when added to 6866 pounds equals 7500 pounds) cannot exceed the vehicle's GVWR, which is 10,000 pounds in this case. GM therefore has made no weights outside those values, and the burden of certification falls upon the final state manufacturer who completers the vehicle in a manner outside the limits cited by GM.; I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4411

Dear Mr. Autery: This responds to your letter to Mr. John Messera, of our Office o Vehicle Safety Compliance, concerning the installation of your company's armrest in certain Volvo models. Specifically, you propose to have dealers remove the part of the front seat belt assembly that contains the buckle for the belt, straighten a metal guide that ensures that the buckle portion of the seat belt assembly will remain accessible to passengers, and discard a spacer washer that is provided with the seat belt assembly. The spacer washer would be replaced by the armrest mounting bracket, which you stated is the same thickness as the spacer washer it would replace. You asked us whether this procedure would be permissible under the law and our regulations. As explained below, any dealers that follow your proposed installation might violate Federal law.; Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection* (49 CFR S571.208) set forth minimum requirements for occupant protection. Additionally, section S7.2 sets forth an accessibility requirement for safety belt latch mechanisms that reads as follows:; S7.2 *Latch mechanism*. A seat belt assembly installed in a passenge car, except an automatic belt assembly, shall have a latch mechanism --; (a) Whose components are accessible to a seated occupant in both th stowed and operational positions, ...; Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safet Act, as amended (15 U.S.C 1397(a)(2)(A)) provides that: 'No manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ...' This statutory prohibition might be violated by any dealer that followed your proposed installation procedures for your armrest.; For example, it may be that Volvo installed the metal guide on it front seat safety belts for the purpose of complying with section S7.2 of Standard No. 208. If this were the case, any dealer that straightened that metal guide, in accordance with your installation instructions, might render inoperative a device (that metal guide) that was installed in the vehicle in compliance with Standard No. 208. In this situation, whether the dealer actually renders inoperative the metal guides by straightening them depends on whether the buckle portion of the seat belt assembly no longer complies with section S7.2 (which requires the buckle to be accessible to the front seat occupant) after the installation.; Section 109 of the Safety Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $100 for each violation of section 108(a)(2)(A), up to a maximum of $800,000 for a related series of violations. We would consider each installation of your armrest by a dealer that renders inoperative the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208 to be a separate violation. Accordingly, a dealer might be liable for a civil penalty of $1000 multiplied by the number of vehicles in which the dealer had installed armrests in accordance with your instructions.; Please do not misconstrue this letter as suggesting that this agenc either approves or disapproves the proposed installation instructions for your armrests. The Safety Act does not give NHTSA any authority to approve or endorse any products. Instead, the Safety Act places the initial responsibility for determining whether your proposed installation instructions violate a legal or regulatory requirement on your company. The agency may reexamine your initial determination in the context of an enforcement action.; To comply with your legal obligations, I suggest that you carefull reexamine the proposed installation instructions and compare those instructions with the requirements of Standard No. 208, to determine if installing your armrests in accordance with your installation instructions would result in the vehicle no longer complying with Standard No. 208. If it would do so, you will have to devise some other means of installing your armrests, so that dealers would not be instructed to render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208. If your proposed installation instructions do not result in a rendering inoperative of the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208, dealers can follow those instructions without violating any provisions of the law.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

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: aiam5475

"Dear Mr. Bonvin: This is in reply to your letter of December 15, 1994 with respect to the relationship of certain DOT regulations to the Cheyenne, a small front-wheel drive utility vehicle that you wish to import and distribute in the United States. You have asked the following questions: 'What are the procedure to follow in order to be categorize Small Volume manufacturer?' Your question assumes that we have a category of 'small volume manufacturer.' We do not, and there is no exclusion from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) based upon the volume produced by the manufacturer. All motor vehicles must comply with all FMVSS, unless the agency has exempted them from one or more of the standards. We do recognize limited production volume in the regulation under which a manufacturer who produces less than 10,000 motor vehicles of all types may apply for a temporary exemption on the basis that compliance would cause it substantial economic hardship, and must provide production information as part of its application. 'Is there really a big difference on the test in order to certified between small volume and over 10000 vehicles?' As indicated above, if a manufacturer produces less than 10,000 vehicles, that fact is relevant only if that manufacturer wishes to file a hardship exemption application. If a small volume manufacturer has not been exempted, it must comply with the same requirements as apply to those whose yearly production exceeds 10,000. 'Is there any difference between two seaters or four seaters on crash test?' That is a question to be answered by a vehicle manufacturer. If a four-seater is heavier than a two-seater, the difference in weight could make a difference in whether a vehicle with a borderline design passes or fails a crash test. 'Is there a rear crash impact?' Yes. FMVSS No. 301 Fuel System Integrity specifies a 30 m.p.h. moving barrier rear impact test. 'Do we need Air Bags if we have Seat belts?' Currently, vehicles like the Cheyenne are not required to have air bags. However, as explained below, air bags are one means of complying with a the automatic protection requirement which is being phased in for vehicles like the Cheyenne, and eventually the Cheyenne will be required to have air bags for both the driver and right front passenger. Generally, Jeep-type vehicles are considered to be 'multipurpose passenger vehicles' (MPVs). Based on your description, we also assume that the Cheyenne will have a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less. A requirement in FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, which is being phased in requires a specified percentage (varying by year) of each manufacturer's light trucks (a category which includes MPVs with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less) manufactured on or after September 1, 1994 to be equipped with automatic crash protection. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered are automatic safety belts and air bags. A recent amendment of FMVSS No. 208 will require at least 80 percent of each manufacturer's light trucks manufactured on or after September 1, 1997 and before September 1, 1998 to be equipped with an air bag and a manual lap/shoulder belt at the driver's and right front passenger's seating positions. All light trucks manufactured on or after September 1, 1998 must be equipped with an air bag and a manual lap/shoulder belt at these seating positions. 'Do we need a buzzer for the seat belt?' Yes, an audible warning indicator is required. 'Is the dashboard need to be padded?' We cannot answer your question. That decision is to be made by the manufacturer if its tests show that the dashboard is within the head impact area and that some type of padding is necessary to meet FMVSS No. 201 Occupant Protection in Interior Impact. The FMVSS are performance standards and we do not impose design restrictions on the manufacturer, such as requiring that the dashboard be padded. 'Is there any specific ways on how to install the windshield?' No, because that would be design restrictive and, as noted above, the FMVSS are performance standards. The performance requirement for windshields is in FMVSS No. 212 Windshield Retention which specifies what the windshield mounting must do in a 30 mph frontal barrier crash. However, if the MPV is an open vehicle with a fold-down windshield, FMVSS No. 212 does not apply to it. 'What is the surface of the windshield that need to wiped? As far as Windshield Wipers, how many cycles and how many different speed?' You will find the answers to your questions in FMVSS No. 104 Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems. For a copy of these and all our regulations, you should have a copy of 'Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 400-999'. This is available from the U.S. Government Bookstore at ARCO Plaza, C-Level, 505 South Flower Street, Los Angeles. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel";

ID: 20674.ztv

Mr. Vann H. Wilber
Director, Vehicle Safety and Harmonization
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
1401 H Street, NW - Suite 1409
Washington, DC 20005

Dear Mr. Wilber:

We are replying to your letter of September 10, 1999, with reference to marking headlamps with the symbol "DOT."

Paragraph S7.2(a) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, requires the lens of each headlamp and beam contributor to be marked with the symbol "DOT" to certify its compliance with all applicable requirements. You state that "lens" can be interpreted on some contemporary headlamp designs to "include several elements on the reflector or other interior components that contribute to the photometric performance of the forward light." You ask that we interpret S7.2(a) to allow the DOT symbol to be located on internal optical elements "as long as it is visible from the front when installed on the vehicle without removal of any part."

You reference our interpretation of April 25, 1996, to Guy Dorleans "that could appear to conflict with the interpretation we are seeking here," and you seek to distinguish it "on the basis that the question addressed by the agency in that letter apparently presumed that the only 'lens' in the headlamp assembly at issue there was the 'clear lens' in the front of the headlamp housing, whereas the advanced designs we are asking you to consider here include optical elements ('lens') on the interior of the lamp." In the event we cannot distinguish it, you ask that we "reverse the conclusions in that interpretation to the extent they would preclude marking the 'DOT' symbol on interior optical elements."

I am sorry to say that we cannot distinguish your request from the Dorleans letter or reverse the conclusions to the extent that we can allow certification to be placed on interior optical elements. As you pointed out, the DOT marking requirement originated as a certification applied to the lenses of sealed beam headlamps. You are correct that Standard No. 108 does not define the word "lens." In the absence of a definition, we believe that the word "lens" has been clearly understood over the years to refer to the glass or plastic front of the headlamp housing through which light is emitted, and not to the other components of a headlamp, the reflector and the light source. Thus, whether a headlamp is sealed beam, replaceable bulb, integral beam, its lens has been clearly identifiable as such for purposes of affixing the DOT marking. We cannot interpret the word "lens" in a manner that departs from the common understanding of the word. However, we intend to address the concern of your members by rulemaking to amend Standard No. 108 to adopt a definition of "lens" broad enough to encompass interior optical elements where the certification symbol could be placed .

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.11/9/99

ID: nht76-2.11

DATE: 11/24/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Sheller-Globe Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Sheller-Globe Corporation's August 31, 1976, question whether 5 described intersections in a bus body qualify as "body panel joints" subject to the requirements of Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength.

The windshield fence that you describe in section A of your letter connects the window glazing seal to the bus body and is considered to be a portion of the window by the NHTSA. Windows are excluded from the definition of "body panel joint" found in S4 of the standard. Therefore, the fence would be excluded from the requirements of the standard.

The "trim molding" described in section B of your letter constitutes a body panel that encloses occupant space. The fact that the trim is decorative does not place it within the exclusion of "spaces designed for ventilation or other functional purpose." Since the "trim molding" is a body panel and is connected to a body component, it creates a joint subject to the requirements of the standard. The fact that the molding, like every other part of the bus, has a function does not exclude it from the ambit of the joint requirement under the exception for "ventilation or other functional purpose."

In section C of your letter, your acknowledge that the joint where the skirt panel connects to the outside upper body panel falls within the ambit of the standard. You request an exception from the standard's requirements for this joint based upon a perceived lack of safety hazards resulting from failure of this joint in a crash situation.

To implement the Congressional mandate for school bus safety, the NHTSA drafted Standard No. 221 to cover all joints that are potentially dangerous in a crash situation. The agency adopted this broad coverage of joints to avoid the more piece-meal approach of analyzing each joint for possible safety problems, because it is impracticable to test every joint in every possible accident configuration. Therefore, since the joint you describe falls within the parameters of the standard, it must meet the requirements specified.

The joint described in section D of your letter where the vent eves connect to the outside roof panel is a joint within the definition of the standard. The outside roof panel is a "body panel" as defined in S4. The junction where a "body panel" connects to a "body component," the vent eves, constitutes a joint regulated by the standard.

With regard to section E of your letter, the NHTSA agrees that the joint where the outside and inside lower panels connect is within the scope of the standard. Whether or not the joint itself is covered by trim molding is not relevant to its status. It is still a joint within the definition of the standard and subject to all of the requirements therein.

I trust these interpretations fully answer your questions.

SINCERELY,

SHELLER-GLOBE CORPORATION Vehicle Planning and Development Center

August 31, 1976

Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Reference: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 221 - School Bus Body Joint Efficiency

Sheller-Globe Corporation respectfully requests interpretation on whether or not certain junctions within the framed structure of the Superior School Bus Body are "joints" by definition, and whether or not these junctions are subject to the requirements of the above referenced Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard.

Attached you will find an isometric drawing provided for purposes of your locating the area where these junctions in question are located within the framed structure of the Superior School Bus Body.

Also attached you will find section and part drawings identifiable by section to the isometric drawing provided.

A. Upper Pillar to Windshield Fence - Section 3-3:

The windshield fence is not a body structural member, its only function is to retain the windshield corner glass seal. As can be seen on the isometric drawing provided (Section 3-3), this part is not located within the bus occupant space. It is forward of the drivers seating position in the cab area. This part is fastened to the Number 1 Pillar by are welding.

Sheller-Globe Corporation feels that inasmuch as this part is for functional purposes as referred to in Paragraph S4. Definitions - "Body Panel Joints' and therefore is not subject to the requirements of the above referenced Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard.

B. Pillar Facing to Side Body Pillar - Section 5.5, 5.5A and Drawing 62975-B:

This part is not a body structural member, it is as is defined: a "facing", a "trim molding". Its' function is purely decorative as can be seen on Section Drawings 5-5, and 5-5A. This part by virtue of its' construction (rolled or hemmed edges) would provide no sharp, harmful and/or cutting edges in the event of a crash condition. This part is retained to the side body pillar by four (4) rivets, two at the roof rail and two at the sill (see Drawing 62975-B).

Sheller-Globe Corporation feels that inasmuch as this part is for a functional (decorative) purpose as referred to in Paragraph S4. Definitions - "Body Panel Joints" and, therefore, is not subject to the requirements of the above referenced safety standard.

C. Outside Lower Body - Section 9-9: The Superior "Bus Body" sets on the chassis rails (chassis frame) at the lower surface of the underbody main crossmembers (the "O" body line - reference Section Drawing 9-9).

As Paragraph S4. Definitions ("Bus Body") defines the parameters of a bus body, all joints located within these parameters would be required to-comply to the requirements of the above referenced safety standard.

In an interpretation issued by the NHTSA, the fastening of body side rub rails to the outer bus body were excluded from the requirements of the above referenced safety standard. Section Drawing 9-9 (encircled area) depicts where the Skirt Panel is fastened to the Outside Upper Body Panel at the junction where the Body Rub Rail is fastened to the Skirt Panel.

Sheller-Globe Corporation realizes that this junction falls within the defined parameters of a "Bus Body", and accordingly shoull comply with the requirements of the above referenced safety standard. However, Sheller-Globe Corporation requests that this specific junction of the Superior School Bus be exempt from the requirements of the above referenced safety standard for reasons as follows:

A) This junction is located in an area within the structural frame-work of the Superior School Bus Body where probably the highest amount of structural integrity exists, at the bus body floor line perpendicular to the underbody main crossmembers.

B) The steel floor, the Skirt Panel and the underbody main crossmembers are fastened to one another by the 3/8" bolts and nuts, 4 at each body section as can be seen on Section Drawing 9-9.

C) Additionally, the steel floor is joined to the Skirt Panel (upper) in compliance to the requirements of the above referenced safety standard.

D) The Skirt Panel (upper) is joined to the Upper Inside Panel, at the Seat Rail in compliance to the requirements of the above referenced safety standard.

E) All interior and exterior longitudinal panel joints are joined, panel to panel, in compliance to the above referenced safety standard.

F) The steel floor is joined to the underbody main crossmembers in compliance to the requirements of the above referenced safety standard.

Most States require, in their State Specifications, that Rub Rails be installed at the floor-line of School Buses. Denial of this exemption would require that Sheller-Globe Corporation re-engineer this junction configuration, re-engineer and re-tool for the Rub-Rails and Outside Body Panels.

Sheller-Globe Corporation feels that if this junction failed in a crash condition, no loss of body structural integrity would result. Further, feature of this junction in a crash condition would not likely produce edges harmful to the occupants] of the School Bus.

D. Body Rail (Vent Eves) to Outside Roof Panel - Section 12-12A: Section 12-12A depicts where the outside roof panels insert into the roof rail at the vent eves. As further can be seen on Section 15-15, and the isometric drawing provided, the outside roof panels are all fastened as required by the above referenced Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, i.e., 60% Joint Efficiency. The outside roof panels are joined to one another and to the roof bow facings as required by the above referenced Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. Inside roof panels are also joined to one another and to the roof bow facing as required by the above referenced Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard.

Presently, where the outside roof panels (as shown on Section 12-12A) inserts into the roof rail (the vent eves), Sheller-Globe Corporation feels that inasmuch as this outside roof panel edge would not, in the event of a crash condition, provide a harmful and/or cutting edge, the junction in reference does not form a part of the body structure, and further inasmuch as all junctions surrounding the junction in reference are joined as required by the above referenced safety standard, the junction in reference would not be required to comply to the requirements of the above referenced safety standard.

If the referenced junction is required to comply to the requirements of the above referenced safety standard, Sheller-Globe Corporation would be required to redesign and retool this area of the bus body structure and its' surrounding structure. The progress of "plug-welding" has been evaluated in joining in this area, however, the results of this process has not been satisfactory in complying with the requirements of the above referenced safety standard. Additionally, "plug-welding" in this area creates an eye-sore and is conducive to rust.

Sheller-Globe Corporation requests interpretation and guidance of the NHTSA pertinent to whether the referenced junction is or is not required to comply with the requirements of the above referenced safety standard.

E. Outside Lower Panel to Inside Lower Panel - Sections 11-11 and 11-11-A:

Sheller-Globe Corporation realizes that where the outside and inside lower panels are joined according to normal interpretation, this joint would be required to comply to the requirements of the above referenced safety standard.

However, Sheller-Globe Corporation requests guidance on whether this joint, inasmuch as it is covered/protected by the trim moulding that is joined to the lower inside panel as required by the requirements of the above referenced safety standard, so that in a crash condition no harmful and/or cutting edges could be produced, need comply to the requirements of this safety standard.

If this joint that is formed by the outside and inside lower panels is required to comply to the requirements of the above referenced Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, Sheller-Globe Corporation would be required to re-design and re-tool this area and its' surrounding structure, possibly to include a re-design and re-tooling of all passenger windows.

Sheller-Globe Corporation solicits the NHTSA's expedient response to this matter, inasmuch as product engineering and tooling engineering for the 1977 model year Superior School Bus is pending an expedient response.

George R. Semark - Manager Vehicle Safety Activities

(Graphics omitted)

APP APP. SYM. REVISIONS DATE CK. DR.: B DATE: 7-27-76 CK. APP. APP. BUS-FRONT END YEAR: 76 (Illegible Words)

(Illegible Words)

3000 MODEL 1000

SECTION 5-5A

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)