ID: nht70-1.50

DATE: 04/01/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. A. Diaz; NHTSA

TO: Florence L. Dawson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter of March 2, 1970, to Mr. Douglas Toms concerning the failure of the electrical system in your 1968 Volkswagen has been forwarded to this office for reply.

Present Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards include no specific requirement for electrical systems. However, there are minimum performance requirements for certain vehicle components--such as a brake system warning light and various lighting components--which necessarily rely upon a properly functioning electrical system for compliance with the applicable Standards.

I have enclosed for your information a booklet describing briefly the Federal Standards which are presently in force. A copy of the complete Standards publication and all supplements may be purchased at an annual price of $ 8.00 from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20102.

This Bureau does not become involved in individual contractual relationships, such as exists between you and(Illegible Word) Motors or Volkwagon of America, Incorporated. Accordingly, we cannot assist you in obtaining further repairs for your vehicle. We are, however, interested in your experience from the point of view that what you have encountered might occur in other 1965 Volkwagon vehicles. Presently, we have no knowledge of other related failure, but we have made note of your complaint and we will remain alert for any similar reports.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 does not create a right of action by which a vehicle owner way sue a vehicle manufacturer if a safety-related defect is discovered in a vehicle. I suggest you contact an attorney as to possible recourse under Pennsylvania law.

Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to review your experience.

ID: nht71-4.5

DATE: 08/19/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: International Harvester Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 18, 1971, petitioning for reconsideration of the "Defect Reports" regulations (Docket No. 69-31; Notice 2). Your letter was received on March 22, 1971, which is more than 30 days after publication of the regulation. Accordingly, pursuant to NHTSA procedural rules (49 CFR @ 553.35), it has been treated as a petition for rulemaking.

You request that the requirements specified in @ 573.4(b), that defect information reports be submitted not more than 5 working days after a defect in a vehicle has been determined to be safety related, be changed to require the report to be submitted not later than 15 days after the determination has been made. You state as the basis for this requested change that the information required pursuant to @ 573.4(c)(3) and @ 573.4(c)(7) cannot be provided by International Harvester within 5 days due to computer run-out times, but can be provided within 15 days. Section 573.4(b) of the regulation provides, as you point out, that information required pursuant to @ 573.4 that is not available within 5 days may be submitted as it becomes available. This provision deals with the issue you raise, and no amendment to the regulation is called for.

With reference to your statement that the figures you intend to report pursuant to @ 573.5(c)(6) and (c)(7) will be identical, the regulation requires different kinds of information to be reported. Only if the information required by @@ 573.5(c)(6) and (c)(7) is in fact identical may it be reported as such.

The requirements are not intended necessarily to fit within the framework of manufacturers' presently existing data gathering procedures, and may require some manufacturers to change these procedures to provide the specific information.

ID: 1984-2.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/09/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Maryland State Department of Education

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 20, 1984, letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), concerning the Federal school bus safety standards administered by this agency. You asked three questions regarding passenger seating in school buses and the classification of vehicles as school buses.

Specifically, your questions asked:

(a) There are 9 students plus the driver, for a total of 10 people, in a school bus. For purposes of the definition of a school bus, is the driver a passenger?

Section 571.3 of the Code of Federal Regulations defines a "school bus" as a bus that transports children to or from school or related events. Our regulations further define "bus" as a vehicle designed for carrying more than 10 persons. The driver is considered a "person" under our regulations. Thus, it may be useful to remember that any vehicle that carries more than 10 persons is a bus. Your vehicle which seats 9 students plus the driver, for a total of 10 persons, would not be considered a school bus.

(b) If a van is originally designed for 11 passengers plus a driver and, because of the definition of a school bus, the school system desires to alter the number of seat spaces by removing seats so that the van will accommodate 9 pupils plus the driver, will this alteration in any way conflict with the definition of vehicle capacity? (I would assume that any structural changes would place liability in the event of accident attributable to that alteration on the local school system making the change.)

In asking whether the alteration will "conflict with the definition of vehicle capacity," we assume that you are asking whether removing the seats of the vehicle changes the classification of that vehicle as a bus. Your letter is not clear whether it is a dealer who will be modifying the vehicle prior to its sale to the school system, after its sale to the school system, or whether the school itself will be modifying the bus after purchasing the vehicle. We will address these situations in our answer.

Altering an 11-passenger van by removing some of its seats so that it would no longer be of a passenger capacity that would classify it as a bus is, in theory, permissible. If a dealer makes such a modification before the vehicle is sold to you, it must attach an alterer's label in accordance with Part 567.7, Certification, of our regulations. Since the dealer would be changing the vehicle type from a bus to a multipurpose passenger vehicle, it must make sure that the vehicle complies with all of the standards applicable to that new vehicle type. This might be difficult since some different standards apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles than apply to buses.

If the modifications to the vehicle are made by a business such as a garage after you purchase the vehicle, the persons modifying the vehicle must not knowing render inoperative the compliance of your vehicle with any applicable safety standard. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses from rendering inoperative equipment or designs that are incorporated in motor vehicles in compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This means that a person in any of the above categories would not be permitted to destroy the vehicle's compliance with any safety standard by the removal of the seat.

The prohibition against rendering inoperative does not apply to an owner, such as a school or a state, which modifies its own vehicles. A school modifying its own vehicles need not assure that the vehicles comply with the Federal school bus safety standards. However, you are correct in assuming that your school could incur substantial tort liability in the event of an accident involving a vehicle that was not in compliance with the appropriate safety standards. This matter should be discussed with your insurance company and attorney. You should further determine whether your State law would prohibit the use of these vehicles to transport school children.

(c) On a 60-passenger school bus, all of the seats except the three rows in the front are removed. Each seat is 39 inches in width and is used to accommodate two high school pupils. The vehicle color is something other than yellow. A floor-to-ceiling barrier, with an emergency opening, is installed behind the three rows of seats. Supplies, materials, tools, equipment, etc., are transported in the rear of the vehicle with up to 12 youngsters plus the driver in the front portion. Given that all these factors exist at one time, will this vehicle be in conflict with any federal standards? If so, which ones?

There are several areas of school bus safety which could be affected by the proposed modification of the vehicle. Since the vehicle will be carrying more than 10 persons, it is categorized as a bus, and classified by its use as a school bus. A threshold issue related to the question you asked concerns, again, the possibility that removing the bus seats will render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the Federal school bus safety standards. The issue depends on whether it is a garage-type business that will be altering the bus, or the school. Modification of a safety system so that it no longer complies with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of the vehicle's manufacture would be a violation of Section 108(a)(2)(A). As discussed earlier, this prohibition does not apply to an owner, such as a school or a state, which modifies its own vehicles. A school may make any modification that it chooses to its buses. Such action does not violate the Vehicle Safety Act or render the school subject to any penalty under the Act.

However, as you know, private liability might occur if the modifications took the vehicle out of compliance with the safety standard and a student was subsequently injured in one of the buses. Accordingly, the modifications you make should not negatively affect the compliance of your vehicle with the safety standards.

The removal of the bus seats does not appear likely to affect adversely your vehicle's compliance with the Federal safety standards. Those standards do not require the installation of any specific seats or any specified number of seats in school buses. Instead, the standards specify that certain requirements must be met for any seat that is installed. Therefore, if the bus complied with the requirements of the Federal school bus safety standards before its alteration, the proper removal of the seats would not affect the vehicle's compliance.

You propose to install a floor-to-ceiling barrier in the vehicle behind the three rows of seats. Your letter does not describe this barrier in detail, but states that it contains an emergency opening. We are concerned that this barrier would render the vehicle in noncompliance with the requirements for emergency exits found in FMVSS No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release.

Standard No. 217 regulates the number and size of school bus emergency exits and requires that the release mechanisms of those exits be readily accessible. The purpose of these requirements is to provide an easily operable, unobstructed school bus emergency exit. In the past, the agency has preempted a State requirement for a safety chain that would have been placed across an exit, because we viewed the chain as providing an obstruction to the opening. We have also interpreted the Standard to prohibit a ramp used for transporting the handicapped when the ramp partially blocked the rear emergency exit when it folded into the bus. Your letter did not describe in detail the floor-to-ceiling barrier in your bus and we are unable to form an opinion as to the compliance of the altered vehicle with Standard No. 217. However, if the barrier provides an impediment to the emergency exit then the alteration might conflict with FMVSS No. 217. Further, if the barrier conflicted with Standard No. 217, then it could not be added as aftermarket equipment by any manufacturer, dealer, or repair business, without rendering inoperative the compliance of the bus with the safety standard.

Finally, you indicated that the school bus would be a color other than yellow. Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17 formerly permitted school vehicles carrying 16 or less students to or from school (i.e., "Type II" school vehicles) to be marked, painted, and lighted in one of two ways. The buses could be either marked, painted, and lighted as school buses, or marked, painted, and lighted differently than school buses. However, all school buses now must have the lighting of a school bus required under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Since all school buses must have the lighting of a school bus, under Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17 they also must have the painting and marking of a school bus.

SINCERELY,

MARYLAND STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

March 20, 1984

Frank Berndt, Esquire Chief Counsel, NHTSA NHTSA NTS-31 U.S. Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Berndt: In reviewing CFR 49 (definition of a school bus), the information which you provided recently to school bus contractors in Wisconsin, and Section 201 of Public Law 93-492, I confess I am confused as to who are the passengers on a school bus.

One of my specific questions, I believe, concerns whether the driver is considered as a passenger in a school bus. Below are several situations for which I would like clarification.

(a) There are 9 students plus the driver, for a total of 10 people, in a school bus. For purposes of definition of a school bus, is the driver a passenger?

(b) If a van is originally designed for 11 passengers plus a driver and, because of the definition of school bus, the school system desires to alter the number of seat spaces by removing seats so that the van will accommodate 9 pupils plus the driver, will this alteration in any way conflict with the definition of vehicle capacity? (I would assume that any structural changes would place liability in the event of accident attributable to that alteration on the local school system making the change.)

(c) On a 60-passenger school bus, all of the seats except the three rows in the front are removed. Each seat is 39 inches in width and is used to accommodate two high school pupils. The vehicle color is something other than yellow. A floor-to-ceiling barrier, with an emergency opening, is installed behind the three rows of seats. Supplies, materials, tools, equipment, etc., are transported in the rear of the vehicle with up to 12 youngsters plus the driver in the front portion. Given that all these factors exist at one time, will this vehicle be in conflict with any federal standards? If so, which ones?

I have tried to be as specific as possible in the details provided, but it may well be that further amplification on my part is necessary. Please do not hesitate to call me at (301) 659-2602 so that we might discuss the matter before you reply.

Thank you very much for your cooperation. I look forward to hearing from you very soon.

Wm. Richard Alexander, Chief Pupil Transportation Section

ID: 14165.ztv

Mr. Brian Kimmel
Manufacturer's Rep.
Zodiac Bicycle Corp.
P.O. Box 44140
Baltimore, MD 21236

Dear Mr. Kimmel:

This responds to your letter of February 20, 1997, to Taylor Vinson of this Office asking whether the "Rotary/Zodiac (RZ) bicycle is a 'motor vehicle.'"

For purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and associated regulations, a "motor vehicle" is one which is "driven . . . by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways. . . ." (49 U.S.C. Sec. 30102(a)(6)). You tell us that the RZ is equipped with a small engine "to assist the bicyclist on inclines or when the bicyclist becomes tired from the exertion of pedaling", but that, "[f]rom a standing stop, the motor operating alone cannot overcome the torque required to initiate the movement of the bicycle and rider." Your letter also clearly indicates that, when the motor is operating alone, sooner or later a point will be reached when the reduction of inertia will require pedaling by to keep the bicycle moving.

Your description indicates that the primary motive force for the RZ is muscular power, not "mechanical power" within the meaning of the definition of "motor vehicle", and that the mechanical power of the engine cannot itself alone operate the bicycle under the ordinary circumstances in which it is ridden. We therefore confirm that the RZ is not a "motor vehicle" and is therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

If you have further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson at 202-366-5263.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

cc: Consumer Product Safety Commission

ref:571

d:5/2/97

ID: nht74-1.22

DATE: 04/16/74

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

TO: Trelleborgs Gummifabriks Aktiebolag

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 20, 1974, request for a determination of whether two of your motorcycle treadwear indicator designs conform to the S6.4 requirements of Standard 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars.

The treadwear indicator requirements have been amended by deleting all of that portion of S6.4 that begins "The indicators shall, as a minimum". This means that the manufacturer determines for himself the location and design of the six treadwear indicators required (three in the case of motorcycle tires). He must assure himself that when the indicator is reached, the tread at that point on the tire is worn to a depth of one-sixteenth of an inch (or one-thirty-second of an inch in the case of motorcycle tires).

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

U.S. Department of Transportation, att: Asst Chief Counsel Richard Dyson -- National Highway Traffic Administration

FMVSS-119 Motorcycle Tires

Dear Mr Dyson.

Trelleborg Gummifabriks AB has exported motorcycle tires to U.S.A. for a couple of years. With referens to FMVSS-119, S 6.4 Tread Wear Indicators. We have a little question:

If you look on the two enclosed drawings, G-3053-2, you find two different designs for treadwears: "Forslag I" and "Forslag II".

Please, inform me if you think the one or both of the two designs are in accordance with your stipulations.

Yours sincerely TRELLEBORGS GUMMIFABRIKS AKTIEBOLAG -- Tire Department; Erik Sundelin

ID: nht79-2.34

DATE: 02/02/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: United Bus Sales, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

FEB 2 1979

NOA-30

Mr. Melvin Ives President United Bus Sales, Inc. 6700 S. Garfield Avenue Bell Gardens, California 90201

Dear Mr. Ives:

This responds to your November 6, 1978, letter asking for an interpretation of the warning buzzer requirement of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release.

The standard requires a warning buzzer to sound when an emergency door release mechanism is not in the closed position and the vehicle's ignition is on. From conversations with you and our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, we have determined that your rear emergency door uses a warning buzzer that sounds when the door release mechanism is not in the closed position unless someone continues to exert pressure to hold the door closed. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration considers such a warning device to be in compliance with the standard. The purpose of the warning alarm is to warn passengers and the driver when a door is accidentally left in the open condition while the vehicle ignition is in the on position. Your device appears to meet the intent of the standard.

We have discussed this issue with Mr. Jerry Alexander of the California Highway Patrol, and he has indicated that he will accept our determination. We are sending him a copy of this letter for his information.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel cc: Mr. Jerry Alexander P.O. Box 11730 Fresno, California 93775

November 6, 1978

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 West 7th Street Southwest Washington, D.C. 20590

Attention: Chief Counsel

Gentlemen:

It has been suggested by the Commercial Vehicle Section of the Highway Patrol, State of California, that we ask you for a legal interpertation of Federal Standard, Part 571; S-217, Section S5.3.3 (C) pertaining to the position of the release mechanism and the sounding of the warning buzzer.

Specifically:

"When the release mechanism is not in the closed position, and the vehicle ignition is in the "on" position, a continuous warning sound shall be audible--------."

It is our feeling that our van-type school buses comply. It would, however, be most helpful if we could have an interpretation of the above quoted section for clarification. Mr. George Shifflett, your Compliance Specialist, has visited our plant and is familiar with the details of our units and our request and has been most helpful to us.

Sincerely,

UNITED BUS SALES, INC.

Melvin Ives President

MV/daw

cc: Zemaitis, Joseph Shifflett, George Campoy, Cliff Canova, Andy 02/02/79

ID: nht93-3.21

DATE: April 26, 1993

FROM: Donald J. Crane -- ARVIN, Calspan Corporation

TO: Mary Versailles -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-25-93 from John Womack to Donald J. Crane (A41; Std. 207).

TEXT: Recently, a customer of Calspan Corporation inquired whether or not their vehicle was exempt from the test requirements in S4.3.2.2, Acceleration of Standard No. 207; Seating Systems. This test subjects the restraining device to an acceleration of 20 g., in the longitudinal direction opposite to that in which the seat folds. The seat types exempt from this requirement are a passenger seat in a bus or a seat having a back that is adjustable only for the comfort of its occupant.

A summary of the seat types and vehicle type for Calspan's customer are in the following table.

Front Seat (Drv. & Pass.) Rear Seat (Bench Seat)

Seat Back Angle 24 degrees 26 degrees

Reclining Angle * Forward: 39 degrees 30' +/- 3 degrees No

Rearward: 58 degrees +/- 2 degrees

Sliding Distance 220 mm No

Folding Forward No Split Seat Back folded

Vehicle Type 4-Door Sedan

* 24 degrees + 58 degrees = 82 degrees

With this information, can you please provide a written interpretation of S4.3.2.2 of Standard 207. Also, is this a full-flat seat? What would the interpretation be if the vehicle was a 2-door type?

I thank you for your attention and assistance in this inquiry. Please call me at (716)631-6854 if you have any questions.

ID: nht68-3.19

DATE: 03/25/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; William Haddon, Jr., M.D.; NHTSA

TO: Renault

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of December 1, 1967, concerning tests made on the Renault 10 model for compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 203.

We recognise the validity of a system which takes advantage of the energy absorbing characteristics of the surrounding vehicle structure as on alternative to the more conventional approach of employing on energy absorbing column and/or wheel. As you mentioned, SAE J944 was not written with that type of energy absorbing system in mind. The structure which you intend to employ to provide the energy absorbing requirements specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 203 might in reality first be severely stressed and deformed in a crash eltuation. Therefore any laboratory test used to evaluate such a system should recognize this detrimental influence. In the event that you would wish to submit a proposed alternative test procedure which incorporates a barrier test is specified in Standard No. 204 prior to testing for compliance with Standard No. 203, we would be pleased to consider such a request.

Your second point concerns the need for a more explicit definition of translational motion. SAE J944 states that the body-block contacts the wheel in translational motion. It does not say that this motion must continue after impacting the wheel. Your magnetic release mechanism appears to impart approximately translational motion to the body-block at impact and is a satisfactory procedure. The fact that the body-block is free to rotate forward after impact is a stimulation of an actual crash situation and the body-block was not intended by SAE J944 to be restrained in translational motion after impact. Since the body motion in on actual crash situation will very somewhat the Bureau feels that a more explicity definition of translational motion is unnecessary.

The third series of tests as described in Report No. 287.397 using a right test fixture and the free flying body-block are compatible with the SAE J944 test procedure.

Your interest in motor vehicle safety is appreciated.

ID: 1868y

BY FAX

Mr. H. Hasegawa Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Section Stanley Electric Co. Ltd.

FAX 03-792-0007 (Japan)

Dear Mr. Hasegawa:

This is in reply to your FAX letter of May 22, l989, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency.

You have two questions with respect to the amendment to Standard No. l08 published on May 9, l989 (Docket No. 85-15; Notice 8).

Your first question is the effective date of paragraph S7.7.5.1.(a), which you point out was not previously a requirement of Standard No. l08. You suggest the need for a delayed effective date (but give no reason why one may be needed).

Paragraph S7.7.5.1(a) will be effective June 8, l989. Although the requirement is a new one (the restriction on motion of a headlamp when an external aiming device is applied to it), it was proposed as part of the December 29, l987 NPRM, and no comments received indicated a need for a delayed effective date. Your supposition is correct; S7.5.5.1 will apply to all headlamps with an external aiming system, including those incorporating replaceable bulbs.

Your second question relates to paragraph S7.7.5.l(b), and you ask "whether the requirement of '0.1 in. max.' will be determined, either during the test or after the test". In pertinent part, subsection (b) states "nor shall the lamp recede more than 0.1 in. (2.5 mm) after being subjected to an inward force...." This means that the measurement is determined after the test.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel / ref:l08 d:6/l9/89

ID: nht74-5.15

DATE: 02/28/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; L. R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Mercedes-Benz of No. America

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 11, 1973, asking whether each of the following tire labeling formats used by the Michelin Tire Corporation complies with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109:

1. "2 steel tread plies/2 rayon body plies";

2. "max load 1,310 lbs at 36 psi max press."

We find that the first label format fails to conform to the standard. Paragraph S4.3(a) requires the tire to be labeled with, "the actual number of plies in the sidewall, and the actual number of plies in the tread area, if different." The labeling format used by Michelin creates the impression, contrary to the stated requirements, that the number of plies in the sidewall and the tread area is the same, viz. "2". We consider the body plies, running from bead to bead and lying under the plies in the tread area, to be counted also as plies in the tread area. Thus, the number of plies in the tread area is "4", 2 steel and 2 rayon. Moreover, while we understand the words "body plies" to be essentially synonymous with "sidewall plies", we feel there is little justification for departing from the words of the standard, which uses the word "sidewall" in referring to plies.

We find the second labeling format, that dealing with maximum permissible inflation pressure and maximum load rating, to conform to Standard No. 109. The words "permissible," "inflation," and "rating" are not essential to conformity as long as the appropriate values, clearly identified, are provided.

For your information, I point out that NHTSA test laboratories are without authority to interpret Federal motor vehicle safety standards or provide such interpretations to companies whose

products they test. Only interpretations issued in the form of correspondence signed by authorized NHTSA personnel or by notice published in the Federal Register are considered by this agency to be binding.