ID: nht88-3.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/12/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: GEORGE ZIOLO -- DOT PAPERWORK PROCESSOR

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 04/20/88 TO ERIKA Z. JONES FROM GEORGE ZIOLO RE HEADLAMP COMBINATIONS-REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION, FMVSS 108; OCC - 1932;

TEXT: Dear Mr. Ziolo:

This is in reply to your letter of April 20, 1988, asking about the acceptability under Safety Standard No. 108 of modifying imported vehicles so that they are equipped with two Type 2D1 and two Type 1C1 headlamps. You have been informed by the agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance that this is impermissible "because they are 'nonconforming' 'headlight systems'." You disagree because you believe that the minimum requirements of the Standard are satisfied by the Type 2D1 lamps, and that "S4.4 app ears to permit such a combination."

Paragraph S4.4 is not applicable to the situation you present as it refers to combinations of lamps serving different functions; in your discussion, the lamps serve the identical function of headlighting. Given the fact that the Type 2D1 sealed beam 7" diameter headlamps fulfill the headlighting requirements of the Standard, your question must be viewed as whether a supplement to the headlighting system is permissible under Standard No. 108.

Paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108 permits the addition of nonrequired lighting equipment provided it does not impair the effectiveness of the equipment that the standard requires. The two Type 1C1 5 3/4" diameter sealed beam lamps in a four lamp head lighting system form the major portion of an upper beam headlighting system. The two Type 2D1 lamps in a two lamp headlighting system form the whole of an upper beam headlighting system. Thus, a vehicle furnished with the systems you posit would be equ ipped with more than one upper beam headlighting system. The Type 2D1 system must be designed to conform to the photometric requirements of SAE Standard J579c DEC79 "Sealed Beam Headlamp Units for Motor Vehicles." The SAE Standard establishes at two tes t points, H-V and 4 D-V, maximum allowable candela of 75,000 and 5,000 respectively for each Type 2D1 headlamp. This means that the maximum allowable candela for headlighting systems at these test points is 150,000 and 10,000 candela. The Type 1C1 head lamps will also be designed to conform to SAE J579c. Corresponding maxima at test points H-V and 4 D-V for Type 1C1 systems are 60,000 and 5,000. Thus, a vehicle equipped

with the lamps you have described could emit a total of 270,000 candela at test point H-V (when only 150,000 is permitted), and 20,000 at 4D-V (when only 10,000 is allowable).

Agency research has shown that candela readings in excess of 150,000 greatly increase the potential for glare with little increase in seeing ability. This glare would be visible both to the driver of an oncoming car, and the driver of the modified vehic le itself through creation of a "veiling" glare. The addition of the Type 1C1 headlamps would therefore impair the effectiveness of the Type 2D1 headlighting system, and is forbidden by S4.1.3.

We appreciate your interest in safety.

Sincerely,

ID: nht90-1.27

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 29, 1990

FROM: W.A. Jacques -- Ford Rent-A-Car System., Dealer Fleet Operations Manager

TO: All Ford Rent-A-Car System Members

TITLE: Rental of Ford Club Wagons and Super Wagons for Student Transportation

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-25-90 To Lloyd Bentsen and From Stephen P. Wood (A35; VSA 102(14), 108(a)(1)(a), 108(b)(1); Also attached to letter dated 3-8-90 To Jerry Ralph Curry and From Lloyd Bensen; Also attached to letter dated 2-12-90 To Llo yd Bentsen and From Johannah Bonewald

TEXT:

Prupose This letter is intended to help remedy confusion that apparently exists among some dealers as to what vehicles may be lawfully rented for student transportation. Both Federal and state motor vehicle safety laws and regulations apply to such vehicles.

Legal Requirements The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, and related regulations specify that school buses offered for sale shall meet certain unique requirements .

"School bus" is defined in the regulations as "a bus that is sold, or introduced into interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, but does not include a bus designed and sold for operation as a c ommon carrier in urban transportation.

"Bus," in turn, is defined as "a motor vehicle ... designed for carrying more than 10 persons." 49 Code of Federal Regulations S571.3.

Units Having More Than Ten Seating Positions Because Ford Club Wagons and Super Wagons having more than ten designated seating positions do not comply with the requirements of Federal standards specifically applicable to school buses, they should not be rented for transportation of preprimary, prim ary, or secondary school students to and from school or related events.

Ford sells incomplete vehicles (Econoline Vans and Cutaways with School bus Prep Packages and B-Series Chassis Cowls) to be completed as school buses by specialized school bus manufacturers.

Units Having Ten or Fewer Seating Positions The Federal school bus standards do not apply to Ford 5, 7 and 8 passenger Club Wagons as these vehicles are not "designed for carrying more than 10 persons"

There may be, however, state or local regulations requiring special equipment or identification that must be satisfied before the lower capacity Club Wagons may be used for student transportation. It is the responsibility of the dealer and the rental cus tomer to determine whether any state or local regulations are applicable.

Units for Transportation of College or University Students Questions sometimes arise concerning rental of Club Wagons and Super Wagon to colleges and universities to transport students on field trips or to athleticevents.

An opinion from the Office of the Chief Counsel of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator indicates that vehicles used for such purposes are not considered to be "school buses" in determining applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety stand ards.

However, as the opinion points out, individual states are free to regulate vehicles used to transport college and university students if they chose to do so.

Dealer Responsibilities Because the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has indicated that it considers the provider of a vehicle to be the person most likely to know its intended use, Ford Motor Company recommends that all dealers who rent a Club Wagon or a Super Wa gon as manufactured by Ford Motor Company with more than 10 designed seating positions obtain for his files a signed statement from the rental customer that the vehicle is not being used for carrying students to and from school or related events. If a de aler rents such a vehicle and knows or has reason to know that the rental customer intends to use the vehicle as a school bus, the dealer may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per vehicle under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Ac t.

As stated above, it is the responsibility of the dealer and the rental customer to determine whether any state or local regulations apply to vehicles sold or leased for student transportation.

If you have any questions concerning this bulletin, please contact your Regional office.

ID: aiam0491

Dear Mr. Metz: This is in reply to your letter of November 16, 1971, in which yo requested an opinion as to the requirements of Standard No. 208 that will apply to your vehicles after January 1, 1972. It appears from the information you provided that all of your vehicles have gross vehicle weight ratings of more than 10,000 pounds. They will therefore be subject to the requirements of section S4.3 of the standard. Under this section, you may equip them with either of two restraint options - a passive restraint system, or a seat belt that conforms to the Federal seat belt standard (Standard No. 209). The vehicles will also have to have seats that conform to Standard No. 207, and seat belt anchorages that conform to Standard No. 210.; Copies of each standard are enclosed for your reference. Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0492

Dear Mr. Metz: This is in reply to your letter of November 15, 1971, in which yo requested an opinion as to the requirements of Standard No. 208 that will apply to your vehicles after January 1, 1972. It appears from the information you provided that all of your vehicles have gross vehicle weight ratings of more than 10,000 pounds. They will therefore be subject to the requirements of section S4.3 of the standard. Under this section, you may equip them with either of two restraint options - a passive restraint system, or a seat belt that conforms to the Federal seat belt standard (Standard No. 209). The vehicles will also have to have seats that conform to Standard No. 207, and seat belt anchorages that conform to Standard No. 210.; Copies of each standard are enclosed for your reference. Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2218

Dear Ms. Sears: This is in response to your letter of January 6, 1976, requestin information as to the Federal Standards and regulations that are applicable to the manufacture of an '18 inch pull type horse/stock trailer combination.'; Manufacturers of trailers of the type you describe must certify tha their product is in compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, *Lamps, reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment*, 49 CFR 571.108, and Standard No. 120, *Tire Selections and Rims for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, 40 CFR 571.120. Please note, however, that Standard No. 120 is not effective until August 1, 1976, for the rim marking requirements (S5.2), and September 1, 1976, for the remaining requirements, so trailers manufactured before these times will not have to be certified as being in compliance with Standard No. 120.; The procedure for certification is specified in 49 CFR Part 567, an requires the manufacturer to affix a label to his product certifying that it is in compliance with the requirements of applicable Federal regulations. You should check the trailer that you purchase to make certain there is a certification label. Part 567.4(d) specifies that the certification label for trailers shall be affixed to a location on the forward half of the left side, such that it is easily readable from outside the vehicle without moving any part of the vehicle.; There are no Federal regulations concerning the connection of trailer to trucks or other vehicles. Nevertheless, from a safety stand point it is important that you ascertain the hauling capacity of your truck-trailer system in order to avoid overloading that could create potential safety hazards. You should obtain information from the manufacturer concerning the 'tongue weight' of the trailer when fully loaded, and relate it to the gross axle wight ratings of your towing vehicle, found on its certification label on the door or door post. The trailer manufacturer may also have further recommendations as to the capacity of the vehicle needed to tow one of his trailers safely.; Please contact us if we can be(sic) of any further assistance. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0604

Dear Mr. Nakajima: This is in reply to your letter of February 3, 1972, regarding th application of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials,' to certain vehicle components which you enumerate.; You state that you do not consider the 'steering column tube cover' an the 'steering column cover' to be of 'any other materials . . . designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash' in S4.1, and that it is your understanding that they are therefore excluded from the application of the standard. If these components are not in fact designed to be energy absorbing then your conclusion is correct.; You also ask whether the center console or air conditioner grilles ar required to comply with the standard. The answer again depends upon whether they are within the above quoted language of S4.1. I point out that the NHTSA is presently reviewing this particular requirement, and it may be modified in rulemaking which we expect to publish in the near future.; Finally, you ask for the specific meaning of the term 'trim panels' a used in S4.1. The phrase 'all trim panels, including door, front, rear, and side panels,' is intended to refer to various rigid or semirigid interior coverings, such as door, scuff, and other covering panels, which appear on the front, sides, and rear of the occupant compartment of motor vehicles.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: nht76-5.76

DATE: 01/01/76 EST

FROM: Frank A. Berndt -- Acting Chief Counsel

TO: W.G. Milby -- Staff Engineer, Blue Bird Body Company

COPYEE: Truck Body and Equipment Association

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: 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); Also attached to letter dated 1-14-91 from Paul J. Rice to Thomas D. Turner (A37; Std. 221)

TEXT:

This responds to Blue Bird Body Company's July 20, 1976, question whether the NHTSA's redefinition of "school bus" (illegible), December 31, illegible) includes buses designed for intercity transportation utilized in charter operation to transport school children to and from school or related events, and what constitutes "interstate commerce" as that term term is used in the redefinition. A second July 20, 1976, letter from Blue Bird Body requests reconsideration of two NHTSA interpretations of Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength, that were issued in an April 26, 1976, letter.

The definition of school bus (affective April 1, 1977) states:

"School bus" means a bus that is sold, or introduced in interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, but does not include a bus designed and sold for operation as common carrier in urban transportation.

The definition is not intended to include intercity type buses on regular common-carrier routes, although they may be used in some circumstances to transport school students to and from school or related events. This bus type has never been considered a school bus under existing motor vehicle safe standards on Pupil Transportation Standard No. 17 (43 CFR 1204). In light of the major standardizing activity undertaken by Congress for school buses under the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1970 (the Act) (15 U.S.C. S 1392(i), it is unlikely that such a broad change of regulatory direction would be contemplated by Congress without explicit discussion in the legislative history. The boundaries of coverage of the redefinition are explicitly left by the statute to agency determination, and the agency did not include the intercity buses you describe in the redefinition.

The meaning "interstate commerce" in the redefinition is the same as for that term in S (illegible)(1)(A) of the Act, which states that no person shall "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import non-complying vehicles. While the legislative history of the Act does not directly address the meaning of the term, the House of Representatives Committee report stated: . . . the purpose of this section is to prohibit the manufacture, sale, or importation into this country of vehicles . . . that fail to meet the Federal safety standards . . . (H.R. Rep. No. 1776,

(illegible) Cong., 2d Secs 22 (1966))

The agency adopts the existing construction of the term set forth in Ratzenback v McClurg, 379 U.S. (illegible) (1974). To answer your specific question, however, it should be clarified that only the classification of the bus as a school bus is determined by the (illegible) of "interstate commerce" in those infrequent cases were a sale does not occur. Blue Bird Body's responsibilities to conform to the standards arise directly from its manufacturing activities under (illegible)(1)(A). For example, a bus built in Georgia must conform to the school bus standards if it is sold to a Georgia school for use in transportation of school students, even it never leaves the state.

Your second July (illegible) letter requests reconsideration of the NHTSA's April 26, 1976, decision that the area of contact between headlining panels and the "header" over the windows qualifies as a body joint subject to the requirements of the standard. You assert that the area of contact is not such a joint because it is covered by a molding and therefore does not "enclose occupant space" and cannot be considered a "surface component".

"Body panel joint" is defined in the standard to mean, with several exceptions, the area of contact or close proximity between the edges of a body panel and another body component. Whether or not the joint itself it covered is not relevant to its status. The separate definition of "body panel" does refer to the surface of the exterior or interior of the bus and to use of the panel in enclosing the bus occupant space. Thus, it is the body panel and not the joint which must form part of the exterior or interior surface of the bus. In the case you describe, the headlining panel does enclose the bus occupant space and constitutes a part of the interior surface of the bus. Thus it does form a "body panel joint" at the point of contact with the header (a separate body component).

You also suggest that the requirements do not apply to a joint where the edges of the body panel join a body component at a point other than at the edge of the body component. Your interpretation is incorrect. In the case you describe, the floor panel's edges form a right angle that is attached to a central portion of the tag panel at some distance from its edges. The definition of "body panel joint" refers to contact between the edges of the body panel and another body component, without regard to the proximity of the edges of the body component.

You also request confirmation that a statement on rubrails in our April (illegible) letter is fulfilled by ensuring that, in testing a complex joint to which rubrails are fastened, the rubrails are modified so that they are not held by the gripping fixture of the tensile strength test machine. Your interpretation is correct.

In a related matter, the NHTSA would like to advise you of failure in our April 26, 1976, letter to respond fully to Blue Bird Body Company's February 13, 1976, letter. You asked if the cove molding that is attached at the border of the bus body floor against the sidewall of the bus body would qualify as a surface component whose edges form a joint

subject to the standard's requirements. From your description of the cove molding and its use at the edge of the floor, the agency considers that it does not have a function in enclosing the occupant space and is therefore not considered a body component for purposes of the requirements. A copy of your illustration of these component is attached for the benefit of interested persons.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge receipt of your July 28, 1976, letter to the Administrator, asking that the new definition of "school bus" become effective on April 1, 1977, instead of October 27, 1976. Your request has been granted by a recent notice of rulemaking.

ID: nht74-4.41

DATE: 01/11/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Corner Sterling & Machell Avenues

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 21, 1973 to "U.S. Bureau of Safety" expressing your view that "the automobile industry should . . . have some type of clutch to reverse action when the closing motion of the (power) window meets any resistance."

I enclose a copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 118 Power-Operated Window Systems which has applied to all passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles with power windows manufactured since February 1, 1971. The objective of the standard is to minimize the likelihood of injury or death occurring when a person is caught between a closing window and its frame, channel, or seat. The NHTSA determined that the most cost-effective way to accomplish this objective was by prohibiting operation of power windows when the ignition key is either in the ignition "off" position or removed. As you will see from the enclosure, consideration was given to mechanisms that would reverse the direction of the window.

We appreciate your interest in motor vehicle safety.

ENC.

December 11, 1973

Dr. Irvin Jacobs, M.D.

The circumstance and comment in your letter of November 21, 1973, regarding automatic window closing operation is noted. The matter is deemed to be in the jurisdiction of the U. S. Department of Transportation (DOT). Therefore, we are forwarding your letter with a copy of this acknowledgement to DOT for their attention and an appropriate reply.

JOHN J. KLOCKO Chief, Materials Handling Technology Center

cc: FMSMUSS-118 U.S. Dept. of Transportation

November 21, 1973

U. S. Bureau of Safety Washington D. C.

Gentlemen:

Recently one of our young patients was brought in after having his head caught in the window of a car door after the automatic window closing operation had been started. Fortunately, this was not a serious accident; however, it could have been.

It seems the automobile industry should be prevailed upon to have some type of clutch to reverse action when the closing motion of the window meets any resistance.

Sincerely,

IRVIN JACOBS, M.D.

ID: aiam3593

Dear Mr. Suzuki: This is to follow-up on your conversation with Stephen Oesch of m staff concerning the armrest requirement of Standard No. 201, *Occupant Protection in Interior Impact*. Your specific question concerned the application of section 5.3.1(c) of the standard to an armrest attached to a door. The inboard side of the armrest consists of two vertical surfaces, an upper one and a lower one. The upper surface extends 3 mm closer to the center of the vehicle than does the lower surface. You stated that the two surfaces when viewed in side elevation, *i.e.*, from the vantage point of the door latch or door hinges, together provide more than 2 inches of vertical height within the pelvic impact area. You also asked if section 5.3.1(c) set any limits on the material used for armrests.; Section 5.3.1(c) of the standard provides that: >>>Along not less than 2 continuous inches of its length, the armres shall, when measured vertically in side elevation, provide at least 2 inches of coverage within the pelvic impact area.<<<; Section 5.3.1(c) does not set any radius of curvature or heigh limitation on armrest surfaces. The only requirement is that the armrest provides at least 2 inches of coverage within the pelvic impact area. Section 5.3.1(c) also does not specify any limits on the materials that may be used in an armrest. Obviously, such surfaces must be designed carefully to ensure that the armrest does not concentrate potentially harmful forces on an occupant striking the armrest.; If you have any further questions please let me know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5106

Dear Mr. Stern: This responds to your letter of November 25, 1992, t this agency requesting information on placement of video cameras on school buses. You stated that you are the attorney for the Sussex Wantage Board of Education, a school district in Northern New Jersey, and that you are interested in speaking with other school districts that may use video cameras on their school buses. This agency knows of no specific studies or tests that have been conducted on the use of video cameras in school buses from the standpoint of either motor vehicle or behavioral safety. With respect to the latter, this agency is also not aware of any data which would indicate any safety consequences resulting from passenger behavior on school buses. We have, however, had occasion recently to address the issue of the applicability of our Federal motor vehicle safety standards to the installation of 'silent monitors' in school buses. Please find enclosed, therefore, a copy of a November 17, 1992, letter of interpretation that we wrote to Ms. Shirley A. Stewart of Herndon, VA. Ms. Stewart explained that her company was installing 'silent monitors,' which she described as six-inch cubes of welded steel designed to hold video cameras, in school buses in Prince George's County, Maryland. Should you wish to discuss this issue with Prince George's County school officials, your point of contact would be Mr. David Lombardi, Transportation Director, Prince George's County Public Schools, 13300 Old Marlboro Pike, Upper Marlboro, MD 20702, (301) 952- 6570. Another possible source of information is Ms. Marsha Sailesbury, Consultant, Pupil Transportation, State Board of Education, 100 North First Street, Springfield, IL 63777, (217) 782-5256. I hope this information will be helpful to you. Should you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure cc: Mr. David Lombardi Transportation Director Prince George's County Public Schools 13300 Old Marlboro Pike Upper Marlboro, MD 20702 Ms. Marsha Sailesbury Consultant Pupil Transportation State Board of Education 100 North First Street Springfield, IL 63777;