ID: aiam3103

Dear Mr. McDonald: This is in response to your letter of May 22, 1979, concerning Federa Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, and in confirmation of your telephone conversation with Mr. Schwartz of my office.; You have asked whether a manufacturer must designate a vehicle a 'incomplete vehicle' if, although it is shipped in an incomplete form, its completed type is known. The 'incomplete vehicle' type was established to deal with situations where the manufacturer did not know what the vehicle's final type would be when it assigned the VIN. If the final form the vehicle will take is known to the manufacturer, it may identify that type in the VIN, or it may designate it as an incomplete vehicle. The agency would prefer, however, that the final type be indicated.; There is no requirement that use of a particular vehicle typ designation for VIN purposes be consistent with any other documentation regarding shipment or sale of vehicles manufactured in more than one stage, except that the actual VIN must be used where it appears on the documentation. For example, a vehicle may be designated an incomplete vehicle for the purposes of the NHTSA certification requirements and a truck for the purposes of the VIN requirements.; You have also asked the agency to confirm that engine horsepower nee not be directly or indirectly decipherable from the VIN. This is essentially correct. 'Engine type' is defined in S3 of the standard to mean a power source with defined characteristics such as fuel utilized, number of cylinders, displacement and net brake horsepower. Thus, encoding an engine manufacturer's basic model number would be sufficient. There remains, however, a question as to the point at which two engines with the same characteristics except for horsepower become two different engines. The agency intends to resolve this question in a notice in the Federal Register.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: nht87-2.91

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/10/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: L. M. Short -- Chief, Enforcement Services Division, Dept. of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

L.M. Short, Chief Enforcement Services Division Department of California Highway Patrol P.O. Box 898 Sacramento, CA 95804

This responds to your letter to our office concerning our certification requirements for manufacturers of school buses. I apologize for the delay in responding to your inquiry.

According to your letter, California's school bus regulations require vehicles considered as "school buses" under state law to be certified as "school buses" under Federal law. Vehicles considered as "school buses" under state law include multipurpose pa ssenger vehicles (MPV's) used to carry two or more handicapped pupils confined to wheelchairs. Consequently, under California's school bus regulations, an MPV cannot be used to carry handicapped students unless it is certified as meeting our school bus s afety standards. Because manufacturers have informed you that NHTSA prohibits them from certifying an MPV as a school bus, you request that we remove this restriction by permitting the school bus certification for MPV's.

Your understanding is correct that our regulations prohibit MPV's to be certified as "school buses." Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and NHTSA regulations, manufacturers classify their new motor vehicles in accordance with the def initions we issued for our motor vehicle safety standards (49 CFR Part 571.31 and certify that their vehicles meet all Federal safety standards applicable to the vehicle type. Under the definitions of Part 571.3, the issue of seating capacity makes the s chool bus and MPV definitions mutually exclusive. The passenger seating capacity of an MPV must be 9 or less, while that of a school bus must be 10 or more. A manufacturer cannot certify a vehicle as a "school bus" in compliance with Federal school bus s afety standards unless the vehicle is of a size that puts it within the school bus category. Adopting your suggestion that we permit some MPV's to be certified as School buses could not be accomplished without changing either our "School bus" definition, our regulations for certifying vehicles, or the application of our school bus safety standards. As explained below, we must decline your implicit request to make these changes because of a statutory restriction and because we believe their adoption is n ot warranted by a safety need.

We are precluded from adopting the suggestion that we expand our school bus definition to include some MPV' s because our" school bus" definition is governed by legislation enacted by Congress. In the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974 , Congress added a "school bus" definition to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act which is based on the design and intended use of a "bus." Congress directed that upgraded school bus safety requirements be applied to buses that carry more t han 10 passengers and that are determined by NHTSA likely to be significantly used for the purpose of school transportation.

Your second implicit suggestion is that we change our certification regulations to permit manufacturers to certify a vehicle as both an "MPV" and a "school bus." Such a change would not be practical. A manufacturer's certification of a vehicle is a decla ration that the vehicle is manufactured to comply with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to the vehicle type. Since our performance requirements for MPV's are not identical to those for school buses, an MPV cannot be manufactured to m eet the standards applicable to both vehicle types.

The third suggestion implicit in your letter is that a dual certification can be effectuated by extending the application of our school bus safety standards to some MPV's. We are not aware of any data suggesting a safety reel for such a change. MPV's alr eady have their own safety standards to ensure adequate levels of safety performance for those vehicles. Because of those standards, we do not prohibit the sale of MPV's to transport school children. Further, we do not believe the change you suggest is n ecessary to address the issue raised in your letter. Federal law does not prohibit manufacturers from voluntarily manufacturing MPV's to meet school bus standards on aspects of performance that do not conflict with MPV standards, such as emergency exits and joint strength. California may thus specify performance standards now applicable to school buses for MPV's used to transport handicapped children, provided that the MPV's can continue to comply with MPV standards. Of course, the vehicles would still be certified only as MPV'S.

In your letter, you mentioned that you examined the definitions set forth in Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, for "Type I" and "Type II" school vehicles. As you know, Standard No. 17 was issued under the Highway Safety Act as a standard for State highway safety programs. Since the "standard" consists of our recommendations for the operation of school vehicles, the Type I and Type II School Vehicle definitions found in Standard No. 17 are relevant for determining the o perational recommendations applicable to different school vehicles. Those definitions do not, however, change the Vehicle Safety Act's definition of a school bus or the Act's requirements for a manufacturer to certify school buses to all applicable Feder al motor vehicle safety standards.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

The California Highway Patrol has been informed by a school bus manufacturer that a new vehicle originally designed to accommodate 12 seating positions but reduced to a seating capacity of ten or less must be certified as a multipurpose vehicle in accord ance with Federal standards. Mr. George Shifflet of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) verified this and added that NHTSA does not recognize a vehicle with seating for 10 or less persons as a school bus.

The school bus definition found in Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 571, Section 3. does not specify a minimum number of students to be transported.

Highway Safety Program Manual No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety. United States Department of Transportation, NHTSA was searched for relevant material. This document. which is a guide for all states to use in developing pupil transportation programs, st ates that a "Type II school vehicle -- is any motor vehicle used to carry 16 or less pupils to or from school. The minimum number of pupils is not specified and we note that the word "vehicle" is used rather than "bus".

The California school bus definition is identical to the NHTSA definition of a bus in that both specify a vehicle designed for "more than 10 persons" However. California Vehicle Code Section 545 (copy enclosed) also provides that a motor vehicle that tra nsports two or more handicapped pupils confined to a wheelchair is a school bus. Many of these special buses will transport some pupils "confined to wheelchairs and some ambulatory pupils for a total of less than 10. Even though this seating configuratio n does not meet the definition of a bus, we feel that the school pupils being transported should always be provided with all the safety features provided by Federal and State Law for school buses. Chief Counsel $5 September 16, 1986

There are school bus manufacturers that are willing to certify that a motor vehicle with a seating capacity for 10 or less meets school bus standards but they are prohibited from this certification due to the requirements of Title 49, CFR. Some school bu s operators have been unable to purchase small four-wheel-drive vehicles for use as school buses to operate in snow and rough terrain. They have been forced to purchase larger four-wheel-drive buses in order to obtain the school bus certification label. A smaller four-wheel-drive vehicle may be more appropriate in rural areas under certain driving conditions.

In view of the foregoing information, we respectfully request that the merits of this case be studied and that a decision be made to permit a bus manufacturer to certify a vehicle designed to seat 10 persons or less as a school bus. Perhaps a new vehicle definition or classification is needed, such as "special school bus". If this request is granted, we feel it would be a positive step to further ensure the safe transportation of school pupils. Very truly yours,

L. M. SHORT, Chief Enforcement Services Division

Enclosure

ID: aiam4080

Dear Senator Stevens: Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Ms. Kimberl Hallenbeck of Fairbanks, Alaska, concerning our regulations for safety belts on school buses. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply, since we are responsible for Federal regulations on school bus safety.; Your constituent asked whether our requirements for safety belts appl to the used school buses purchased by her company. As explained below, the answer is no.; We contacted Ms. Hallenbeck's company, Wilbur & Son, on February 13 t obtain more information about her inquiry. Wilbur & Son explained that it purchased two used 1980 large school buses for its shuttle service which had been certified by their manufacturer as meeting our school bus safety standards. The company has been requested to install safety belts in those vehicles, but believes this is unnecessary. The company requested us to clarify our requirements for safety belts on large school buses (i.e., school buses with gross vehicle weight ratings over 10,000 pounds). We appreciate this opportunity to do so.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) i responsible for developing safety standards for all new motor vehicles, including school buses. NHTSA does not require safety belts in large new school buses because we issued a safety standard in 1977 (Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*) to require those buses to provide improved crash protection to passengers through a concept called 'compartmentalization.' Compartmentalization requires that the interior of large buses be improved so that school children are protected without the need to fasten safety belts. The seating improvements include higher and stronger seat backs, additional seat padding, and better seat spacing and performance. Our safety standards do require safety belts for passengers in smaller school buses since those buses do not offer the same protection as that provided by compartmentalization.; Although we have determined that a safety standard *requiring* safet belts in those buses is not warranted at this time, NHTSA has tentatively determined that an amendment to Standard No. 222 might be necessary to set performance requirements for safety belts voluntarily installed on large new school buses. We recently issued such a proposal. If it is adopted, we would require manufacturers to ensure that safety belts voluntarily installed on new school buses meet performance criteria established by our safety standards. We emphasize that such a requirement would apply to the manufacture of new school buses only, and would not apply to persons retrofitting safety belts on large school buses already in use. A copy of our rulemaking notice is enclosed.; We are enclosing a copy of a report issued by NHTSA entitled 'Safet Belts in School Buses' (June 1985), which might be of interest to your constituents. In addition, we are providing your constituents with a copy of Safety Standard No. 222, and information sheets which describe our motor vehicle safety standards generally and how to obtain copies of individual safety standards or regulations.; I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact m office if we can be of further assistance.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3281

Dear Mr. Cole: This is in response to your letter of April 14, 1980, regarding tw apparent discrepancies in the revised Uniform Tire Quality Grading tread label format, published on November 29, 1979, in Docket 25, Notice 35 (44 FR 58475). As you note, the word 'Vehicle' was omitted from the term 'Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109' under the heading 'Temperature' in Figure 2, Part II, of the regulation as published. This was an inadvertent omission which the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) plans to correct in a future notice.; You also point out that paragraph (d)(1)(i)(B)(1) of the regulation (4 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(i)(B)(1)), applicable to tires manufactured prior to October 1, 1980, provides for use of the heading 'DOT QUALITY GRADES' in capital letters, while Part I of Figure 2 of the regulation contains the heading 'DOT Quality Grades' using lower case letters. The label format specified in paragraph (d)(1)(i)(B)(1) parallels the label format originally announced in Docket 25, Notice 24 (43 FR 30542, July 17, 1978), the heading of which used all capital letters. Since Part I of Figure 2 is not required on labels printed in accordance with paragraph (d)(1)(i)(B)(1), the use of lower case letters in the heading of Part I does not affect the requirements of paragraph (d)(1)(i)(B)(1). NHTSA will permit, at the manufacturer's option, the use of all capital letters in the heading of Figure 2, Part I, in printing labels to comply with the new two-part label format.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3282

Dear Mr. Cole: This is in response to your letter of April 14, 1980, regarding tw apparent discrepancies in the revised Uniform Tire Quality Grading tread label format, published on November 29, 1979, in Docket 25, Notice 35 (44 FR 58475). As you note, the word 'Vehicle' was omitted from the term 'Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109' under the heading 'Temperature' in Figure 2, Part II, of the regulation as published. This was an inadvertent omission which the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) plans to correct in a future notice.; You also point out that paragraph (d)(1)(i)(B)(1) of the regulation (4 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(i)(B)(1)), applicable to tires manufactured prior to October 1, 1980, provides for use of the heading 'DOT QUALITY GRADES' in capital letters, while Part I of Figure 2 of the regulation contains the heading 'DOT Quality Grades' using lower case letters. The label format specified in paragraph (d)(1)(i)(B)(1) parallels the label format originally announced in Docket 25, Notice 24 (43 FR 30542, July 17, 1978), the heading of which used all capital letters. Since Part I of Figure 2 is not required on labels printed in accordance with paragraph (d)(1)(i)(B)(1), the use of lower case letters in the heading of Part I does not affect the requirements of paragraph (d)(1)(i)(B)(1). NHTSA will permit, at the manufacturer's option, the use of all capital letters in the heading of Figure 2, Part I, in printing labels to comply with the new two-part label format.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: nht88-2.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/09/88

FROM: L. F. ROLLIN COMMANDER COMMERCIAL AND TECHNICAL SERVICES SECTION DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL

TO: JERRY K. YOST -- JERRY'S SERVICE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/19/88 TO DOUGLAS H BOSCO, FROM ERIKA Z JONES, REDBOOK A32 (2) STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 06/16/88, TO ERIKA Z. JONES, FROM DOUGLAS H. BOSCO; LETTER DATED 08/03/87 TO DOUGLAS H. BOSCO FROM ERIKA Z. JONES; LETTER DATED 03/28/88 TO C-MORE-LITE JERRYS SERVICE FROM DON O. HORNING RE TEST REPORT NO 92606; 1988 LETTER TO ERIKA Z. JONES FROM JERRY'S SERVICE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Yost:

This letter is in response to your inquiry about the legality of the C-More-Light headlight device.

My engineering staff reviewed your letter, the letter from NHTSA and the test report (#92606) from Industrial Testing Laboratories (ITL). It is our opinion that the device is legal to install and use on any headlight system designed to meet type "F" pho tometrics. This system is also permitted by California law as long as the photometric output is within the standards established for any other type of headlight. The ITL tests appear to show compliance.

Vehicles equipped with the C-More-Light and a control group of similar vehicles without the C-More-Light device should be used in field testing. Responses from drivers should address the effectiveness of the headlights on both high and low beam as well as the reactions of approaching drivers. Reactions such as flashing high beams or other indicators that the headlights are annoying should be noted. Effective testing should ensure that the test and control group vehicles have properly adjusted headlig hts and that the driver's responses are not prejudiced (not informing the drivers which vehicles have operational C-More-Light devices). We look forward to seeing a report on your test results.

Any further questions should be directed to my engineering staff.

Very truly yours,

ID: nht91-7.3

DATE: November 7, 1991

FROM: Takashi Odaira -- Chief Representative, Emission & Safety, Isuzu

TO: P. J. Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Mr. Sakai; Mr. Watanabe

TITLE: Test Conditions - Side Impact (FMVSS 214)

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/14/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Takashi Odaira (A39; Std. 214)

TEXT:

The purpose of this letter is to seek your agency's interpretation about the test conditions specified in FMVSS 214, Side Impact Protection.

S3. (b), (c) and (d) of FMVSS 214 specify passenger cars whose rear seating areas are so small that the rear seat requirements do not apply.

However, when such passenger cars are subjected to dynamic side impact test, is it necessary to place a test dummy on their rear seating positions?

I would appreciate receiving your quick response to this question.

ID: aiam3297

Dear Mr. Lundregan: This is in reply to your letter of April 16, 1980, asking whether Moto Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 allows 'reflective markings (such as red diagonal stripes on a white reflective background) [to] be used to increase visibility on the front of [trucks and heavy vehicles]'.; You are correct that Standard No. 108 does not directly address thi question. The section of the standard that appears most pertinent to it, however, is S4.1.3 prohibiting the installation as original equipment of any reflective device 'that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by' Standard No. 108. We would be concerned, for example, if reflective materials were installed in a manner that might cause confusion with headlamps or front turn signal lamps. We also wish to point out that under the standard the use of the color red is at the rear of motor vehicles and that its appearance in any other location might also cause confusion.; However, as a practical matter the use of reflective materials as truc and heavy vehicle equipment sold either as original equipment or in the aftermarket is governed by requirements of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (Federal Highway Administration) which prohibit use of the color red on the front of a vehicle. You should review their requirements before proceeding with your marketing plans. (49 CFR 393.26(e)(4)).; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: nht79-4.45

DATE: 01/11/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin, Jr.; NHSTA

TO: Grumman Flxible

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590

JAN 11 1979

NOA-30

Mr. R. L. Ratz, P.E. Product Safety Engineering Grumman Flxible 970 Pittsburgh Drive Delaware, Ohio 43015

Dear Mr. Ratz:

This is in reply to your letter of December 8, 1978, asking whether the front and rear clearance lamps on your Model 870 Urban transit coach comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

The front clearance lamps on the Model 870 are combined with the turn signal lamps, side marker lamps, and side reflex reflectors. The units are located "on line with and just outboard of each rectangular headlamp," with lens center 32 inches above the road surface, at a point that appears to be at the vehicle's overall width. The rear clearance lamps are combined with the stop lamps and rear side marker lamps, their horizontal center lines 64 inches above the road surface, at approximately the vehicle's overall width. Front and rear identification lamps are mounted at the top of the vehicle.

The general rule expressed by Table II of Standard No. 108 is that clearance lamps must be mounted "to indicate the overall width of the vehicle ... and as near the top thereof as practicable." But a partial exception is provided by S4.3.1.4.: When the rear identification lamps are mounted at the extreme height of the vehicle, rear clearance lamps need not meet the requirement of Table II that they be located as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle."

This means that the mid-body location of the rear clearance lamp is acceptable since the rear identification lamps are at the extreme height of the vehicle. But the exception does not extend to the front clearance lamps. While Standard No. 108 allows the manufacturer to determine what location is "as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle", there will be instances when the overall width of the vehicle will not be indicated by the highest location. In such instances the best location will be the one that most closely approximates the intent behind the requirement - to indicate the overall width.

Specifically with reference to the Model 870, it appears to us that the close proximity of the combination lamp to the headlamp may result in the effectiveness of the clearance lamp being impaired by the brightness of the headlamp, and that the most practicable location sufficiently indicating the overall width of the vehicle, would be at the outer edges of the body directly below the windshield.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr.

Chief Counsel

GRUMMAN FLXIBLE 970 PITTSBURGH DRIVE DELAWARE, OHIO 43015 614/369-7671 Telex : 245484 70-0220rlr

December 8, 1978

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

References: (a) FMVSS No. 108. Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, current edition. (b) Grumman flxible Model 870 Advanced Design Transit Coach, photographs attached. (c) Certificates of conformance copies attached.

Dear Sirs:

Your assistance is requested with respect to an official interpretation of reference (a) above as it relates to the installation location of the clearance lamps on our new Grumnan Flxible Model 870 urban transit coach as shown in the enclosed photographs.

Refering to Photograph #1, the amber lamp seen on line with and just outboard of each dual, rectangular headlamp is a combination lamp which performs the functions of a turn signal lamp, a clearance lamp, a sidemarker lamp and a side reflex reflector. The lamp contains a single, dual-filament bulb. A 3 c.p. filament provides the light source for the combination clearance/sidemarker lamp functions. and a 32 c.p. filament provides the light source for the front turn signal function. This lamp has been certified as being in conformance with FMVSS No. 108 by the manufacturer (See Attachment #1) and certificates of approval have been issued by the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (See Attachment #2) and the Department of California Highway Patrol (See Attachment #3). These lamps are mounted with lense centers 32 inches above road surface, on the outermost edges of the vehicle front view envelope thus indicating the overall width of the Model 870. It should be noted from Photo #1 that the vehicle sides converge from a point just beneath the baseline of the windshield up to the topmost roof corners. The amount of this convergence is such that each roof corner is eleven inches inboard if the base of the windshield cornerpost. Therefore, clearance lamps mounted at the top-most roof corners would identify the vehicle as being twenty-two inches narrower than it actually is.

Our rear exterior lamp configuration is shown in Photo #4. The upper red lamp on each outer edge of the rear view functions as a stop signal lamp, a clearance lamp and a sidemarker lamp. The horizontal center line of this lamp as installed is 64 inches above road surface. The lower red lamp functions as a tail lamp, a turn signal lamp, rear reflex reflector and a side reflex reflector. It's horizontal center line as intalled is 50 inches above road surface. Each lamp contains a single, dual-filament 3 c.p. & 32 c.p.) bulb. The stop signal and turn signal functions utilize the 32 c.p. filament. The clearance, sidemarker and tail lamp functions utilize the 32 c.p. filament.

The white lamp shown between the two red lamps on each side are backup lamps. Attachments #4, #5 and #6 are copies of the certificates associated with these lamp units.

We would greatly appreciate a review and evaluation by the Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, of the installation locations of the clearance lamps on the Model 870 bus as regards to conformance with the applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 108.

Sincerely,

R.L. Ratz, P.E.

Product Safety Engineering

Enclosures

ID: aiam3288

Dear Mr. Boyd: This responds to your recent letter requesting confirmation that larg commercial truck tractors do not have to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 216, *Roof Crush Resistance*. You also asked whether large trucks should be designed to comply with the 'belt system' option under Safety Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*.; You are correct in your assumption that large commercial trucks woul not have to comply with Safety Standard No. 216 since that standard only applies to passenger cars. You are also correct in stating that trucks with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds may meet the seat belt option of Safety Standard No. 208 found in paragraph S4.3.2. Under S4.3.1, manufacturers do have the option of meeting the crash protection requirements of S5 by means that require no action by vehicle occupants (with current technology this means air cushion restraints or automatic seat belts). Further, vehicles manufactured prior to August 15, 1977, were permitted to comply with Safety Standard No. 216 in lieu of the 'roll-over' requirements of Standard No. 208, and for large trucks this would have been a simple test to meet. However, since the vehicle would also have been required to meet the 'frontal' and 'lateral' requirements by automatic means if option S4.3.1 were taken, no truck manufacturers chose to comply with the 'rollover' requirements of Standard No. 208 via the Standard No. 216 option. Rather, seat belts were installed on all large trucks.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel