ID: aiam5399

"Dear Mr. Inui: This responds to your letter asking about the tes conditions for the dynamic side impact test of Standard No. 214, 'Side Impact Protection.' I apologize for the delay in responding. The test conditions are set forth in S6 of the standard. S6.1 explains how to achieve 'test weight:' Test weight. Each passenger car is loaded to its unloaded vehicle weight, plus its rated cargo and luggage capacity, secured in the luggage area, plus the weight of the necessary anthropomorphic test dummies. Any added test equipment is located away from the impact areas in secured places in the vehicle. * * * You first ask whether the weight of the added test equipment inside the vehicle is added to the test weight, or whether parts of the vehicle (weighing the same as the 'added test equipment') are removed to keep the vehicle weight at the 'test weight.' The answer is that parts of the vehicle may be removed, but only as a last resort. A brief explanation of how NHTSA calculates test weight follows. Under S6.1, 'test weight' is comprised of the combined weight of the vehicle with all fluids, the cargo and luggage weight, the test dummies, and nothing more. The cargo and luggage weight is derived by subtracting from the gross vehicle weight rating specified by the manufacturer the combined weight of the vehicle, fluids, and 150 pounds for each seating position. There are subtractions and additions to the vehicle weight in preparation for the test. The fuel is replaced with Stoddard solvent, but only to approximately 93 percent of capacity, and all other fluids (oil, washer fluid, etc.) are drained. Thus, the vehicle is lightened by the weight of 7 percent of the fuel and all of the other fluids. However, the added weight of cameras and any other necessary (non-dummy) test equipment usually more than compensates for the fluid weight loss, and the vehicle generally is slightly heavier than the test weight. Therefore, other weight must be removed until the test weight is reestablished. Please note that NHTSA will remove parts of the vehicle to compensate for the weight of the test equipment only as a last resort. The agency will first remove cargo or luggage ballast. If still more weight must be removed (i.e., in the unlikely event that the weight of the test equipment exceeds the weight of the removable cargo and luggage) the agency will remove parts of the vehicle. This is only likely to occur in vehicles with very small cargo capacities, such as sports cars. In this event, NHTSA would remove only parts of the car that play no part in the side impact test (e.g. bumpers). You next ask about the 'vehicle test attitude' specifications of S6.2. By way of background, NHTSA determines the attitude of the vehicle in its 'as delivered' condition (i.e., the vehicle as received at the test site, filled to 100 percent of all fluid capacities and with all tires inflated to the manufacturer's specifications) and in its 'fully loaded condition,' under the vehicle test attitude specification of S6.2. Under S6.2, the vehicle's pretest attitude is equal to either the as delivered or the 'fully loaded attitude' or between the as delivered and the fully loaded attitude. You ask whether the term 'fully loaded attitude' means the attitude of the vehicle in the 'fully loaded condition.' The answer is yes. Moreover, S6.2 specifies that ' t he `fully loaded condition' is the test vehicle loaded in accordance with S6.1.' As mentioned in our response to your first question, S6.1 explains how to load the vehicle to achieve the test weight. You also ask whether the 'as delivered' left-to-right attitude must be maintained when adding test equipment. The answer is also found in S6.2's specification that ' t he pretest vehicle attitude is equal to either the as delivered or fully loaded attitude, or between the as delivered attitude and the fully loaded attitude.' This language describes a range of attitudes, including the left-to-right attitude, which the vehicle may be in at the time of the test. The vehicle must be capable of passing the test anywhere within the prescribed range. Therefore, when NHTSA tests a vehicle, the agency has leeway in maintaining the as delivered left-to-right attitude when adding test equipment. As long as the left-to-right attitude after adding equipment is somewhere between the attitude in the as delivered condition and the fully loaded condition, an acceptable pretest vehicle attitude will be achieved. Finally, I would like to note that NHTSA's Enforcement Office prepares updates to its laboratory test procedures on an as-required basis. The updates include rule changes and maintenance revisions. We project a maintenance update to the side impact test procedures (TP-214D-03) will be published within the next six months. During this update, issues addressed in this letter will be considered. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John G. Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: 10443

Mr. Jerry G. Sullivan, P.E.
The Braun Corporation
Post Office Box 310
Winamac, IN 46996

Dear Mr. Sullivan:

This responds to your letter addressed to Mary Versailles of this office in which you asked whether, under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release, the driver's side front door area on non- school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) less than 10,000 pounds could be credited toward the unobstructed openings requirement of section S5.2.

The opening paragraph of section S5.2, Provision of emergency exits, requires buses other than school buses to provide unobstructed openings for emergency exits which collectively amount, in square inches, to 67 times the number of designated seating positions on the vehicle. The same paragraph also requires that at least 40 percent of the total unobstructed opening area must be provided on each side of the bus. No single emergency exit, however, can be credited with more than 536 square inches of the total area requirement.

With regard to non-school buses with a GVWR less than 10,000 pounds, section S5.2.2(c) provides that such buses may meet the emergency exit requirements by means of doors. Accordingly, nothing in the standard prohibits crediting the driver's side door as an emergency exit so long as it meets all emergency exit requirements of the standard, including the release mechanism and 40 percent requirements, up to a maximum credit of 536 square inches.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:217 d:1/9/95

ID: 1982-2.19

DATE: 07/06/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Truck Body & Equipment Association -- Bradley Sweet

TITLE: FMVSS Interpretation

TEXT:

Truck Body & Equipment Association 5530 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1220 Chevy Chase Maryland 20815

Dear Mr. Sweet:

Since you represent the School Bus Manufacturers Institute, I am writing for your assistance. We are reinterpreting the requirements of @5.3.3 of Standard No. 217. Bus Window Retention and Release, as they apply to audible warning devices and would like your assistance in disseminating this interpretation.

As you know, the standard requires that a continuous warning sound shall be audible at both the driver's seating location and in the vicinity of the enclosed door. In the preamble to the notice implementing this requirement, the agency stated that section @5.3.3 requires two warning devices one located at each position. The agency made this interpretation based upon the then available data indicating that a single warning device in a bus might not be audible in both locations.

In the years that this requirement of the standard has been in effect, the agency has reexamined the issue in light of experience and finds that it is possible to have only one warning device audible at both locations. We have determined that this device can be heard even when a bus is loaded with noisy children. In accordance with this finding, the agency is reinterpreting the language of section @5.3.3 to permit one warning device is that device is audible at both locations. We caution manufacturers to ensure that their warning devices will be audible at both locations even when the bus is loaded.

Thank you for your assistance in providing this information to your members and others in the school bus industry.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 7922

Ms. Janet Taylor
Marketing and Sales Manager
A-PEX International Co., Ltd.
2900 Lakeside Drive
Suite 101
Santa Clara, CA 95054-2812

Dear Ms. Taylor:

This responds to your letter seeking information on how the laws and regulations administered by this agency would apply to a device called the "Tap Root Equipment Stand." The equipment stand consists of a base plate which is bolted to the floor of a vehicle, a vertical tube which attaches to the base plate, and a rotating shelf at the top of the tube. The stand is intended to be used for portable equipment such as laptop computers, facsimile machines, and car phones.

By way of background information, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable Federal safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

NHTSA does not have any safety standards specifically covering equipment stands. However, it is possible that the installation of an equipment stand could affect the compliance of a vehicle with some safety standards.

All new motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States must be certified by their manufacturers as complying with the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If an equipment stand is installed in a certified vehicle prior to its first sale to a customer, the person making the installation would be considered a vehicle alterer. Under our certification regulation (49 CFR Part 567), a vehicle alterer must certify that the vehicle as altered continues to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses modifying a used vehicle are prohibited by Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act from knowingly rendering inoperative any safety 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. Thus, if an equipment stand is installed in a used vehicle, any businesses making such installations cannot render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with any of our standards.

In order to determine how installation of the Tap Root Equipment Stand could affect the compliance of vehicles with applicable Federal safety standards, you should carefully review each standard, including but not limited to those addressing occupant crash protection and occupant protection in interior impact. In that regard, I am enclosing for your information a fact sheet entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, and a booklet entitled Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations.

By way of example, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires, among other things, that passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less meet specified performance requirements in a crash test. In particular, test dummies occupying the front outboard seating positions must comply with specified injury criteria in a 30 miles per hour barrier crash test. The specified injury criteria are the head injury criteria (HIC), chest acceleration and deflection, and femur loading. Nothing in the testing requirements of Standard No. 208 explicitly prohibits the installation of an equipment stand in the interior of vehicles. However, the Tap Root Equipment Stand appears to have hard surfaces and sharp edges, especially as compared with the padded dashboard, steering wheel, seats, and other components the test dummy may contact in a crash. It may not be possible for a vehicle to satisfy the injury criteria during dynamic testing if the equipment stand was installed in an area contacted by the test dummy, or if the stand interfered with the deployment of air bags.

Individual vehicle owners may modify their own vehicles without being subject to the federal safety standards. If the equipment stand is to be installed by such individual owners, however, I urge them to take potential safety hazards, such as those previously listed, into account before attempting to install the equipment stand. Manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment are also subject to the defect provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. If data indicated that a device such as an equipment stand exposed occupants to an unreasonable risk of injury, such as from sharp edges resulting in injuries during crashes, the agency might conduct a defect investigation which could lead to a safety recall.

I also note that, apart from the issue of whether the equipment stand itself posed any safety risk to vehicle occupants, it is possible that the means of installation could create problems. The manufacturer should ensure that the recommended means of installation would not result in such things as the seepage of vehicle exhaust gases into the passenger compartment or weakening of the metal floor pan.

I hope this information is helpful to you and your client. If you have any further questions or need some additional information, please feel free to contact David Elias of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:208 d.12/28/92

ID: nht87-2.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: JUNE 25, 1987

FROM: MARY F. BARRAS -- SALES ASSISTANT, CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION, M.A.N. TRUCK & BUS

TO: MICHAEL W. VORIS -- BUS PROCUREMENT SUPERVISOR, METRO

TITLE: CONTRACT NO. T/F 19-83 REAR EMERGENCY WINDOW

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 2-23-88, TO JAY COSTA, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, STD 271, REDBOOK A31; MEMO DATED 6-18-87, CONTRACT NO. T/F 19-84 REAR EMERGENCY WINDOW; MEMO DATED 7-21-87, TO ERIKA Z. JONES, FROM JAY COSTA

TEXT: Further to my letter of June 18, 1987 pertaining to the subject matter, this letter is to serve as clarification in regard to our position, the manufacturer, of the subject contract trolley buses.

* The trolley bus, as manufactured and delivered to Metro Seattle, more than exceeds the standards set forth by FMVSS 217.

* Paragraph S5.2.1 of the information previously submitted, states that at least one (1) rear exit shall be provided unless the bus configuration precludes the installation of an accessible rear exit. The trolley bus design of the subject, contract d oes not preclude the installation of an accessible rear exit; therefore, because of this requirement and our interpretation of FMVSS 217, a rear exit is provided.

Considering the above, M. A. N. Truck & Bus Corporation recommends that the rear window, as delivered to Seattle Metro, should remain as designed.

ID: 23134.rbm

Ms. Wendy Cohen
Assistive Technology Specialist
The State Education Department
VESID, 109 S. Union St.
Rochester, NY 14607





Dear Ms. Cohen:

This responds to your correspondence regarding the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) final rule on vehicle modifications for individuals with disabilities. You ask whether the results of front, side and rear crash tests conducted on modified Grand Caravan vehicles with a 119 inch wheelbase are valid for a similarly modified Dodge Caravan with a 113 inch wheelbase. Your question is in connection with a vehicle modified to accommodate a person with a disability, and appears to raise issues regarding continued compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel system integrity (FMVSS No. 301).

NHTSA is unable to answer your question. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment items, nor does the agency endorse any commercial products or vendors. Furthermore, we cannot provide specific information as to whether the types of potential modifications you have discussed would have the effect of taking the vehicle out of compliance with FMVSS No. 301. This responsibility lies with the business that makes the modifications. As noted above, the critical factor is whether the vehicle, as modified, would pass a FMVSS No. 301 crash test. We do note that, even though no changes were made to the frame or materials of construction, differences in the location of the fuel tank and the fuel fill and supply lines can affect crash test results. Any such differences could prevent a vehicle manufacturer, alterer, or modifier from relying on existing test data, especially in the case of the side impact test, where the impact target zone is based on the driver's seating position. A vehicle with a shorter wheelbase is likely to have its fuel tank and fuel fill line closer to the side impact zone than a similar long-wheelbase vehicle. We urge vehicle modifiers to exercise reasonable care including working with the vehicle manufacturer to determine whether a potential modification would take the vehicle out of compliance.

By way of background, NHTSA administers a statute requiring that motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States or imported into the United States, i.e., vehicles that are driven on the public roads and highways of the United States, be manufactured so as to reduce the likelihood of motor vehicle crashes and of deaths and injuries when crashes do occur. The statute ("Vehicle Safety Act") is codified at 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq.

One of the agency's most important functions under that Act is to issue and enforce the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs). These standards specify safety performance requirements for motor vehicles and/or items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicles must certify compliance with all applicable safety standards and permanently apply a label to each vehicle stating that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSSs.

The Vehicle Safety Act also prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment that is in compliance with any applicable FMVSS (49 U.S.C. 30122). If NHTSA determines that a business has violated the make inoperative provision, it may assess a civil penalty in the amount of $5,000 per violation (not to exceed $15,000,000 in the aggregate). NHTSA may, through regulation, exempt a person or business from the prohibition if it decides that an exemption is consistent with motor vehicle safety and the Vehicle Safety Act.

On February 27, 2001, NHTSA published a final rule setting forth a limited exemption from the make inoperative prohibition for businesses or individuals who modify vehicles for persons with disabilities (66 Federal Register 12638; Docket No. NHTSA-01-8667). This exemption is codified at 49 CFR Part 595, which explains the extent of the exemption and provides parameters that repair businesses must stay within when performing modifications to a vehicle after first retail sale in order to take advantage of the exemption. Part 595 lists in section 595.7(c) the FMVSSs for which modifications are permitted to enable a person with a disability to operate, or ride as a passenger in, the motor vehicle even though the modification may make inoperative a part of a device or element of design installed in or on the motor vehicle in compliance with a FMVSS.

Persons with disabilities often purchase vans or minivans to meet their particular needs. Crash testing is typically used by the original vehicle manufacturers to certify that these vehicles meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 204 (gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 lb or less and unloaded vehicle weight of 4,000 lb or less), FMVSS No. 208 (GVWR of 8,500 lb or less and unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 lb or less), FMVSS No. 212 (GVWR of 10,000 lb or less), FMVSS No. 214 (GVWR of 6,000 lb or less but does not apply to vehicles equipped with wheelchair lifts), FMVSS No. 219 (GVWR of 10,000 lb or less), and FMVSS No. 301 (GVWR of 10,000 lb or less). Part 595 provides an exemption that would allow a vehicle modifier to take a vehicle out of compliance with portions of FMVSS Nos. 204, 208, and 214 if the modifications are necessary to accommodate a person's disability. FMVSS No. 204 modifications are limited to those that affect the original steering shaft. If modifications to the steering shaft are not necessary, the vehicle must continue to meet the standard's requirements. Modifications with respect to FMVSS Nos. 208 and 214 are limited to those designated seating positions that are modified for use by a person with a disability.

The FMVSS most likely to be directly affected by a modification that lowers the vehicle's floor is FMVSS No. 301. This is because, at a minimum, the fuel lines from the engine to the fuel tank will usually need to be relocated; if large areas of the floor are lowered, the fuel tank itself may need to be relocated or replaced. FMVSS No. 301 requires that any spillage from the fuel system be within specified limits (on average, about one ounce per minute) when the vehicle is subjected to one of three test conditions: pulled forward into a fixed barrier at 30 mph, struck on the side by a 4,000 lb flat-faced, moving barrier traveling at 20 mph, or struck from the rear by the same moving barrier traveling at 30 mph. The vehicle will crush as it absorbs the crash energy in each test. The vehicle's fuel system is directly affected by the energy of the crash as that energy can cause the fuel tank to move. In addition, the fuel tank, lines, and other components may come into contact with other components in the same area of the vehicle. For example, in many cases where the agency's test vehicles have experienced spillage from the fuel tank, that spillage has been the result of the tank being pierced by another component of the vehicle.

Producers of equipment that is used in a system (e.g., fuel tank and lines) that is designed to comply with a particular FMVSS (e.g., FMVSS No. 301) are component suppliers and would not be directly subject to the requirements of the standard, ⁽¹⁾ although any manufacturer or alterer (see 49 CFR 567.7) using the product would be. A company that lowered the floor of an incomplete vehicle, or otherwise completed manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle, would be a final stage manufacturer. A company that lowered a vehicle floor on, or made other changes to, a completed vehicle prior to first retail sale would be an alterer. Both companies would have to certify that the vehicle, as finally manufactured or altered, complies with all applicable FMVSS, including FMVSS No. 301. A company modifying a vehicle after first retail sale, may not modify a vehicle in such a way as to take the vehicle out of compliance with any applicable FMVSSs for which there is no make inoperative exemption, although the modifier is not required to certify compliance with all applicable standards. However, any modifier that avails itself of the make inoperative exemptions provided in 49 CFR 595.7 must affix a permanent label to each affected vehicle that includes the statement "this motor vehicle has been modified in accordance with 49 CFR 595.6 and may no longer comply with all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards in effect at the time of its original manufacture." Section 595.7 also requires the modifier to retain a copy of the document that must be provided to the vehicle owner. Section 595.7(e)(4) requires the document to include "a list of the FMVSS or portions thereof specified in paragraph (c) of this section with which the vehicle may no longer be in compliance."

Because there is no Part 595 exemption related to fuel systems, vehicle modifiers must take care to ensure that they do not modify the vehicle fuel system in a manner that takes it out of compliance with FMVSS No. 301. One way to provide such assurances would be to purchase vehicles where the floor has already been lowered by the vehicle manufacturer or alterer, who has certified compliance with FMVSS No. 301. Another possible way to provide assurance that compliance has not been compromised is by modifying the vehicle pursuant to a specific protocol based on analysis of crash-testing in accordance with FMVSS No. 301. For example, we believe that the National Mobility Equipment Dealers Association (NMEDA) has successfully crash-tested a vehicle with a lowered floor and that it provides an explanation of how to make such a modification to its Quality Assurance Program (QAP) members. Finally, a modifier may use engineering analysis alone to determine whether the vehicle modification would take a vehicle out of compliance with the standard. This last option is the most risky since there is no crash-test data to verify the soundness of the modifier's judgment.

I hope the addresses your concerns. Please contact Rebecca MacPherson of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992 should you have any additional questions about this matter.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:595
d.4/12/02





---

¹ As a practical matter, component suppliers often assume some responsibility to the manufacturer for the compliance of vehicles equipped with their products to applicable FMVSSs. This is done through a contractual relationship between the supplier and the vehicle manufacturer that certifies compliance.

ID: 8760

Mr. K. Aubrey Hottell
Smith and Robson, Inc.
Suite 200
354 North Prince St.
Lancaster, PA 17603

Dear Mr. Hottell:

This responds to your letter of June 7, 1993, requesting information on "air bag replacement, air bag indicator light functioning, and any requirements or recommendations for indicator lights to be functional upon resale of a vehicle."

With regard to air bag replacement, I am enclosing a letter, dated January 19, 1990, to Ms. Linda L. Conrad. As explained in this letter, Federal law does not require replacement of a deployed air bag in a used vehicle. In addition, there is no Federal law that prohibits selling a used vehicle with a supplemental restraint that is inoperable because of a previous deployment.

With regard to air bag indicator lights, S4.5.2 of Standard No. 208 requires a readiness indicator for an air bag system which is clearly visible from the driver's seating position. After an air bag is deployed, this indicator would show that the air bag system is not operative. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (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.

As explained in the Conrad letter enclosed, this provision does not impose an affirmative duty to replace equipment damaged in a crash. Hence, there is no Federal law that prohibits selling a used vehicle with an air bag indicator that is inoperable because of damage in a crash. However, the named commercial entities are prohibited from removing, disabling, or otherwise "rendering inoperative" a functional indicator. Any violations of this "render inoperative" prohibition in the Safety Act would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation.

As noted in the Conrad letter enclosed, our agency strongly encourages dealers and repair businesses to replace deployed air bags whenever vehicles are repaired or resold, to ensure that the vehicles will continue to provide maximum crash protection for occupants. This recommendation would also include repair or replacement of a non-functioning indicator light.

I am also enclosing a copy of the information sheet referred to in the Conrad letter. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:208 d: 7/21/93

ID: 20570revised

Mr. Thomas D. Turner
Manager, Engineering Services
Blue Bird Body Company
P.O. Box 937
Fort Valley, GA 31030





Dear Mr. Turner:





This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength. I apologize for the delay in responding. You ask whether the plastic wire trim parts that Blue Bird is considering using in school buses are parts of body panel joints which must meet the fastener spacing and joint strength requirements of the standard.

Manufacturers are permitted two alternatives in meeting Standard No. 221. Until May 5, 2001, they may certify school buses manufactured on or after November 5, 1998 as meeting either: (a) requirements that have been in effect prior to a November 5, 1998 final rule (63 FR 59732); or (b) requirements adopted by the November 5, 1998 final rule (see also 65 FR 11751, delaying the mandatory compliance date of the final rule until May 5, 2001).

Alternative No. 1
Under the requirements of Standard No. 221 that have been in effect prior to the November 1998 final rule, plastic wire trim parts are not expressly excluded from the standard's joint strength requirements. However, maintenance access panels are excluded from the definition of a "body panel joint," and until May 5, 2001, do not have to meet the standard's joint strength requirements. You state that the plastic wire trim has qualified for the maintenance access panel exclusion and thus has not been subject to the requirements. Assuming your assessment is correct, the parts are excluded as maintenance access panels until May 5, 2001, for buses certified to this alternative.

Alternative No. 2
Under the November 5, 1998 final rule, ⁽¹⁾ the maintenance access panel exclusion will be narrowed ⁽²⁾ for school buses manufactured on or after May 5, 2001. Nonetheless, the final rule excludes certain school bus body panels and parts from the joint strength requirements of S5.1.1 and S5.1.2 of the standard. The excluded parts include:

Trim and decorative parts which do not contribute to the strength of the joint, support members such as rub rails which are entirely outside of body panels, doors and windows, ventilation panels, and engine access covers. (S5.2.1(b))

In the November 5, 1998 final rule, the agency explained why trim parts were excluded:

Small and complex joints, as well as trim, decorative parts, floor coverings, and molding strips will not be tested. The agency has no data indicating that any injuries have been caused by failure of these small and complex joints or components, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration believes that the potential cost of trying to test them would far outweigh any potential safety benefits.

Blue Bird believes that the plastic wire trim parts in question are "trim and decorative parts which do not contribute to the strength of the joint" and therefore are excluded from the fastener spacing and joint strength requirements of S5.1.1 and S5.1.2. In support of your position, you provided Figure Two, illustrating how you will redesign the area above the passenger side window to meet the new requirements. You also provided the following description of the wire trim parts:

The headlining panels are being lengthened and flanges are being added to the side window headers to create overlapping longitudinal joints between these components. These joints will be designed and manufactured to comply with the fastener spacing and joint strength requirements of S5.1.1 and S5.1.2. The wire molding panels are being eliminated and replaced with smaller, non-metallic, non-hostile, plastic wire trim. This wire trim will be in short sections and will cover the wiring harnesses behind them as well as the Federal motor vehicle safety standard 221 complying joints between the headlining panels and the side window headers.

We have reviewed Blue Bird's description of the plastic wire trim parts and the figures provided with the letter. We agree that the plastic wire trim parts at issue do not contribute to the structural integrity or the joint strength of the bus. As such, they would be excluded from the requirements of S5.1.1 and S5.1.2. This exclusion only applies to school buses that are manufactured on or after November 5, 1998, and certified as meeting this compliance alternative, i.e., the requirements set forth in the November 5, 1998, final rule.

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





Sincerely,





Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

ref:221
d.8/31/00

---

1. In brief, Standard No. 221 requires: (a) body panels attached to each other to have no unattached segment at the joint longer than 203 mm (S5.1.1); and (b) each body panel joint to hold each body panel to the component to which it is joined when subjected to a force that equates to 60 percent of the tensile strength of the weakest joined body panel (S5.1.2).

2. The requirements of S5.1.1 and S5.1.2 do not apply to any interior maintenance access panel which lies forward of the passenger compartment, or which is less than 305 mm when measured across any two points diametrically on opposite sides of the opening (S5.2.1(a)).

ID: nht87-1.94

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/04/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ching-Hsien Huang

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Ching-Hsien Huang Branch Chief Structural Analysis Department Yue Loong Motor Engineering Center P.O. Box 510 Taoyuan, Taiwan 33099 Republic of China

Dear Mr. Huang:

Thank you for your letter of May 4, 1987, asking several questions about Standard No. 210, Roof Crush Resistance, and Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. You asked whether Standard No. 216 is still in effect. The answer is yes.

You also asked whether Standard No. 216 can be substituted for the rollover test contained in the first, second, or third option of Standard No. 208. - The answer is that compliance with the roof crush resistance requirements of Standard No. 216 cannot b e substituted for compliance with the rollover test of Standard No. 208.

I would like to clarify the applicability of the rollover test requirement of Standard No. 208 for you. The only rollover test contained in Standard No. 208 is found in 54.1.2.1 of the standard. A vehicle is subject to the test only if the vehicle's manu facturer chooses to meet it instead of an alternative requirement. 54.1. 2. l(a)- provides that a manufacturer has to meet the dynamic occupant protection requirements by automatic means in a frontal/angular crash test. In addition, a manufacturer must m eet 54.1.2.1(c). 54.1.2.1 (c ) provides a manufacturer with two options. A manufacturer can either meet the requirements of 54.1.2.1 (c)(l) and provide occupant crash protection by automatic means in a literal crash test and a rollover crash test or a ma nufacturer can meet the requirements of 54. 1. 2.1 (c) ( 2) and provide a manual lap or a manual lap/shoulder below at each front designated seating position. If a manufacturer chooses to meet 54.1.2.1 (c) ( 2), the vehicle must comply with 54.1.2.1(s) a nd provide occupant crash protection by automatic means in a frontal/angular test with the manual safety belt unfastened. In addition, the vehicle must provide occupant crash protection by automatic means in a frontal/angular test with the manual safety belt fastened.

I hope this answers your questions, if you need further information please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ERIKA Z. JONES CHIEF COUNSEL U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION MAY 4, 1987

DEAR SIR,

WE ARE THE ENGINEERING CENTER OF YUE LOONG MOTOR COMPANY IN TAIWAN. PLEASE REPLY THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. (1) HAD STANDARD NO. 216, ROOF CRUSH RESISTANCE--PASSENGER CARS, BEEN REVOKED AFTER AUGUST 15, 1977)

(2) IF THE ANSWER OF (1) IS NO, CAN STANDARD NO. 216 BE A SUBSTITUTED FOR THE ROLLOVER TEST REQUIREMENT IN THE FIRST, SECOND, OR THIRD OPTION OF STANDARD NO. 208, OCCUPANT CRASH PROTECTION, NOWADAYS?

YOUR HELP WILL BE GREATLY APPRECIATED.

SINCERELY YOURS,

CHING-HSIEN HUANG BRANCH CHIEF STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS DEPT.

ID: nht76-1.40

DATE: 02/18/76

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

TO: Miller Spreader Company

COPYEE: MR. WELTZER -- REGION OFC. V

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 1, 1976, to Regional Office V of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), concerning whether your company's spreader product must comply with the requirements of Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations, paricularly Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires.

The NHTSA issues safety standards and regulations for "motor vehicles." Section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act defines a motor vehicle as a vehicle "manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways." Thus, a motor vehicle is a vehicle which the manufacturer expects will use public highways as part of its intended function. The primary function of some vehicles is of a mobile, workperforming nature, and, as such, their manufacturer contemplates a primary use of the highway. Mobile cranes, rigs, and towed equipment such as chippers and pull-type street sweepers that travel at a normal highway speed are examples in this area. These motor vehicles qualify as trucks or trailers. As such they are subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations. On the basis of the information you have sent us your company's towed paver appears to be in this category of vehicles, and would therefore be considered a "motor vehicle."

There are some vehicles which are excepted from the motor vehicle classification despite their use on the highway. Highway maintenance and contruction equipment, lane stripers, self-propelled asphalt pavers, and other vehicles whose maximum speed does not exceed 20 mph and whose abnormal configuration distinguishes them from the traffic flow are not considered motor vehicles. Your company's paver would not appear to qualify in this category of vehicles since, as a towed paver, it would travel at a speed greater than 20 mph, at least when moving between job sites.

Consequently, your product must comply with the requirements of the Federal standards and regulations. Standard No. 119 does not directly impose any duty on you, because it applies to tires rather than vehicles. However, the NHTSA has recently issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (copy enclosed). This standard does require, effective September 1, 1976, that your vehicles be equipped with tires that conform to Standard No. 119 and are of sufficient load rating.

Please contact us if we can be of any further assistance.

YOURS TRULY,

Miller Spreader Company

December 30, 1975

Bob Webtzer U. S. Department of Transportation

Enclosed please find the following items:

A. Literature describing two (2) models of Towed Pavers manufactured by the Miller Spreader Company:

1) Dial-A-Mat Paver

2) MS-708A Paver

B. Drawing 41001 showing the general arrangement of the rubber tired undercarriage used on both paver models above.

C. One photograph showing rubber tired undercarriage mounted under a Paver (See photograph marked "C")

D. One photograph showing towed paver carried on the rear of the dump body of a drump truck (see photograph marked "d").

E. One photograph showing paver elevated off the ground and being pulled by a tow bar assembly (see photograph marked "E")

F. Copy of Internal Revenue Service ruling exempting the Miller Paver when used in conjunction with a Miller Tow Bar from Excise Tax Regulations.

The Miller Towed Paver is a piece of construction machinery used specifically to spread asphalt or base materials on a prepared surface. This machine is used by both governmental bodies and commercial contractors to build and maintain driveways, parking areas, roads, etc.

A rubber tired undercarriage provides running gear for this paver. We have used a 530/450 6" wheel and pneumatic tire assembly in either 4 or 6 ply design. Our present models of this towed paver use eight (8) of these tire assemblies per paver (See drawing 41001).

To date we have no recorded incidents of wheel or tire failure other than an occassional flat, on these towed pavers.

We are interested in how the use of our present wheel and tire assembly on our Towed Paver meet current Department of Transportation specifications for this type of construction machinery. Specifically, we are interested in information pertaining to the particular application of our Towed Paver with a tow bar for highway use.

For purposes of our discussions we can treat both the Miller Dial-A-Mat Towed Paver and the Miller MS-708A Towed Paver as similar units in that changes in accessory components change the model designation and not the basic function of the machine. Hereafter we will refer to either machine as "Towed Paver".

The operation of the Towed Paver involves attaching the paver to the dump truck rear wheel assembly by means of an in-a-wheel hitch (see cover of Miller Dial-A-Mat literature). The dump body of the truck is then elevated, dumping asphalt materials into the hopper of the paver. The dump truck then moves forward pulling the paver which deposits a thickness of asphalt.

Transportation of the Towed Paver to and from the jobsite is done in either of two (2) ways. The most common method of transportation is to suspend the paver on the rear of a dump body (see photograph marked "d").

The second method of transportation of the paver to and from the jobsite is to use a tow bar (see photograph marked "e"). The towed paver is lifted off the ground by use of two (2) hydraulic cylinders and locked into the elevated position. The tow bar is attached to the rear of the paver. The tow bar is then attached to rear of the towing vehicle. Safety chains, lights, etc. are provided. The Paver is pulled from jobsite to jobsite much in the same manner as portable concrete pumps, concrete mixers, etc.

The distance the paver would be towed would not normally exceed 10-15 miles. I don't know whether the enclosed information for a excise tax exemption will be of any help but I have enclosed it for any useful purpose it might serve. I trust the enclosed information is complete. Please let me know if you need further information. Thank you for your assistance.

W. Thomas James, III

Internal Revenue Service

May 13 1974

Miller Spreader Company

Attn: Mr. W. Thomas James, II Vice President

This is in reply to your letter of April 3, 1974, requesting a ruling whether the proposed manufacture and sale of a towing device described below will be subject to the manufacturer's excise tax imposed by section 4061(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

The towing device (Tow Bar) is specially designed to be attached directly to an asphault spreader (Miller Paver) and will be used to connect the Miller Paver to a towing vehicle (truck) for the purposes of job to job moves. The Tow Bar will be limited to use only with a Miller Paver and will not be adaptable for use with other machinery.

Section 4061(b)(1) of the Code imposes a tax on parts or accessories (other than tires and inner tubes) for any of the articles enumerated in subsection (a)(1) sold by the manufacturer, producer, or importer.

Section 48.4061(b)(2) of the Excise Tax Regulations defines the term "parts or accessories" as including (1) any article the primary use of which is to improve, repair, replace, or serve as a component part of an automobile truck or bus chassis or body, or other automobile chassis or body or taxable tractor, (2) any article designed to be attached to or used in connection with such chassis, body or tractor to add to its utility or ornamentation, and (3) any article the primary use of which is in connection with such chassis, body, or tractor, whether or not essential to its operation or use.

We have previously ruled in Revenue Ruling 72-479, published in the Internal Revenue Cumulative Bulletin 1972-2 at page 544, that a self-feeding spreading device designed to be attached to a standard dump truck body is not a "part or accessory" subject to excise tax. The Miller Paver is a self-feeding spreading device as described in Revenue Ruling 72-479 and is therefore not a "part or accessory" subject to excise tax.

The Tow Bar described is designed to be used primarily as a component part of, to add to the utility of, and in connection with the non-taxable Miller Paver rather than primarily with a taxable towing vehicle. Therefore the proposed manufacture and sale of the Tow Bar would not be subject to the tax imposed by section 4061(b)(1) of the Code.

We are enclosing a copy of Revenue Ruling 72-479 for your information.

Richard L. Crain Acting Chief, Excise Tax Branch

For the best paving job, greater profits . . . chec miller MS - 708A with Hydraulic Beam Electric/Hydraulic Controls Rubber Tires Heat

FOR MATERIAL SAVINGS

You'll need Miller's exclusive Hydraulic Beam. This feature alone will save time and material as well as reduce operator fatigue. Two levers on the operator's console let him make thickness corrections on either or both sides of the paver.

Corrections are made quickly and accurately . . . WITH HYDRAULIC BEAM a correction can be made in less than 4 feet of paver travel . . . with other pavers the same correction takes from 12 to 15 feet of travel.

FOR A SMOOTHER MAT

Check Miller's wide stance rubber tire undercarriage. The tires are staggered so they won't follow truck ruts and will provide a smoother ride over rough base.

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

FOR QUALITY MAT FINISH

Miller's heavy duty screed wear plate features rolled edges to assure a better mat seal on both straight pulls and on a radius. Both edges are rolled making the wear plate reversible.

A 31 jet in line screed heater provides even heat along the entire screed to assure a uniform mat finish. The even heat also eliminates plate warpage.

An insulated cover running the entire width of the paver shields the operator from the heat and minimizes fuel consumption.

FOR BETTER MATERIAL FLOW Miller's clean, unobstructed hopper design provides excellent material flow. Enlarged gate and bleed out openings increase the flow of material to the screed and extensions.

FOR MOBILITY

Only Miller utilizes a 4-point chain hook up for transporting the paver from job to job. This system assures safe, even support along the entire width of the truck body and prevents damage to the body or tailgate.

FOR GREATER RETURN ON INVESTMENT

In addition to all these outstanding performance features, Miller pavers are built to hold up under high tonnage and extreme paving conditions. All stress points (*) are engineered to provide maximum strength, thus assuring extended paver life.

MAKE US PROVE MILLER IS BEST . . . ASK US TO DEMONSTRATE.

(Graphics omitted)