ID: nht94-3.87

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 5, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Stamped signature by Kenneth N. Weinstein

TO: William G. Franz -- Vice President Fabrication, Wells Aluminum Corporation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/4/94 from William G. Franz to Walter Myers (OCC 9857)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Franz:

This responds to your letter addressed to Mr. Walter Myers of this office requesting an interpretation of window opening size as provided in paragraph S5.1.2, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release. I apologize for the delay in responding.

You explained that Wells Aluminum Corporation manufactures pushout windows for the school bus industry. You asked whether the 8-inch window opening size referred to in paragraph S5.1.2 applies to the "total outside frame dimension" or to each pane of gl ass. "In other words, would a pane of glass which measures less than 8 inches across need to be subject to the retention test [of S5.1 of FMVSS No. 217]?" To illustrate your question, you enclosed with your letter a picture of an upper/lower-pane pushou t window which was positioned for a retention test.

To be excluded from Standard No. 217's window retention requirement, the entire window, and not just a pane of the window, must be less than the 8-inch window opening size described in S5.1.2 of the standard. Section 5.1 of FMVSS No. 217 specifies reten tion requirements for windows other than windshields in buses. Paragraph S5.1.2 provides that those requirements do not apply to "a window whose minimum surface dimension measured through the center of its area is less than 8 inches." This exemption of 8 -inch windows was included in the standard in the final notice establishing the standard, published in the Federal Register on May 10, 1972 (37 FR 9394). In the preamble to that notice the agency stated at 37 FR 9395:

Since there is little likelihood of passenger ejection or protrusion from window openings whose minimum surface dimension measured through the center of the area is less than 8 inches, an exemption for windows of this size has been granted (emphasis adde d).

2

It is clear that the intent of the agency in providing this exemption was to exempt window openings, as measured by the perimeter of the window, not just individual panes of glazing material. A window can be composed of more than one pane of glazing mat erial, such as the window in the picture you provided, where 1 or more individual panes may have a minimum dimension smaller than 8 inches, but the whole window is larger than 8 inches. Regardless of the size of the individual panes which make up a wind ow, passenger ejection or protrusion could occur through such a window opening. Since ejection through such a window is precisely what the standard was intended to prevent, S5.1 would apply.

We note that you did not explain what you meant by "total outside frame dimension" and the meaning of the quoted phrase is not entirely clear. We assume you meant the entire window opening which, for the window in your picture, would include the combina tion of both panes and the window frame. Thus, for purposes of S5.1.2, we would measure both the pane and the window frame.

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

ncc-20WMyers; mar:7/25/94:62992:OCC 9857 Ref:217 U: NCC20 INTERP 217 9857.WKM Greenbook: (2); Interps: Std. 217 Coord: NRM, NEF

ID: nht78-3.29

DATE: 04/14/78

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

TO: Grove Manufacturing Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. R. G. Wilkins Product Safety and Reliability Grove Manufacturing Co. Shady Grove, Pennsylvania 17256

Dear Mr. Wilkins:

This responds to your recent letter asking whether plastic glazing materials may be used on the superstructure operator cabs of mobile construction cranes. Apparently, the upper superstructure cab is used only for craning operations and is distinct from the cab used to drive the crane over public highways.

Under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR Part 571.205), plastic glazing may be used only in locations to the rear of the driver in trucks or truck tractor cabs and only at levels not requisite for driving visibility. Therefore plastic glazing could not be used in the windshield or windows to the right or left of the driver in the main driving cab of the mobile crane. It is our interpretation, however, that the superstructure operator cab is, effectively, to the rear of the driver when the vehicle is being used on the highway and could be equipped with plastic glazing materials meeting the requirements of Standard No. 205. This interpretation assumes that the operator cab cannot be used to drive the mobile crane on the highway. If the operator cab could be used as the driving cab, plastic glazing could only be used in locations to rear of the driver at levels not requisite for driving visibility.

Please contact this office if you have any questions concerning this interpretation.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

Ref: PSR-2727

February 23, 1978

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Washington, D.C. 20590

Attention: Office of Legal Counsel

Subject: Request for Interpretation on Use of Plastic Glazing Materials on Superstructure Cabs Applicable to Mobile Hydraulic Cranes.

Reference: (a) FMVSS-205 (b) Z26.1-1966

Dear Sir:

For the past few years our distributors, predicated on user input, has requested Grove to consider the installation of various plastic glazing materials in our (upper) superstructure operator cabs to aid in the prevention of vandalism at their yards and construction job-sites as well as reducing machine "down-time" for glass replacement.

For your edification, we have included two typical carrier-mounted hydraulic crane sales brochures to be utilized as an aid to better understand our design characteristics and positioning of our superstructure cabs. Grove Manufacturing Company feels that an official interpretation from your office is required prior to any action on our part to install a glazing material other than glass inasmuch as Grove does certify to meet all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) on the date of manufacture.

Our interpretation of FMVSS-205 precludes the use of plastic materials as glazing other than to the rear of the driver, however, our superstructure cab is utilized strictly for craning operations on an off-highway configuration and while "roading" the crane over public highways the upper mode is unoccupied.

If clarification or further information is required to aid in forming an official NHTSA opinion on this matter, please do not hesitate to contact us.

May we thank you in advance of any consideration given in this matter.

Very truly yours,

GROVE MANUFACTURING COMPANY

R. G. Wilkins Product Safety & Reliability Analyst

RGB/cds

Encl.

ID: nht90-4.55

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: November 7, 1990

FROM: Lennard S. Loewentritt -- Deputy Associate General Counsel, Personal Property Division, General Services Administration, Office of General Counsel

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-26-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Lennard S. Loewentritt (A37; Part 571.7(c))

TEXT:

We are in receipt of your August 23, 1990 letter regarding applicability of the exception in 49 CFR 571.7(c) to buses purchased by the General Services Administration's (GSA) use of Interagency Fleet Management System (IFMS) for the Sole the Armed Forces . The exception states that Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply to vehicles that are "manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States, in conformity with contractual specifications." This exception has perm itted the Army to acquire vehicles designed to satisfy multi-use requirements, specifically buses equipped with seating designed for adults and painted in a color other than school bus yellow. This exception made it possible for the Army to utilize the buses for their primary mission of troop movement, and, as needed, for transporting military dependents to and from school.

In our letter to Mr. Felrice dated February 2, 1990, we requested a deviation for "vehicles or items procured by GSA's IFMS for use solely by the Army." We believe this language may have caused confusion concerning the IFMS's role in purchasing vehicles and may have led to the erroneous assumption that the IFMS acts as a purchasing agent for the Army. GSA plays two roles with respect to the purchase of vehicles. GSA's Automotive Center acts as a purchasing agent for agencies that wish to purchase veh icles through GSA. In addition, GSA purchases vehicles for its own fleet, the IFMS. These vehicles are assigned on an indefinite basis to agencies that have had their fleets consolidated into the IFMS. These agencies are charged a monthly fee for use o f the vehicles assigned the them. In 1985, the Army began a program to consolidate approximately 45,000 nontactical vehicles into the IFMS. The program is currently being completed and, as a result, the IFMS is now responsible for purchasing and leasin g vehicles for the use by the Army. The potential to consolidate the Air Force's fleet and to provide similar services also exists.

In the case at hand, the IFMS would be purchasing buses for indefinite assignment to and sole use by the Army for the purpose of transporting troops as well as transporting military dependents to and from school. In the remote event that any such bus we re reassigned to another agency, IFMS would require that it be used solely for the transport of adults. Although IFMS would not be acting as a purchasing agent, we still believe that a deviation is proper, and we request that NHTSA grant a deviation for buses procured by GSA IFMS and assigned for use by the Armed Forces, such vehicles to be manufactured in accordance with contractual specifications. GSA would use specifications for buses which reflect the requirements of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safet y Standards for buses

rather than school bus specifications.

We believe a deviation from the requirements in 49 CFR 571.7 to permit buses purchased by IFMS to be assigned solely to the Armed Forces would be appropriate. This deviation would allow the Army and any other consolidated military activities to continue to use the buses for the purpose of transporting adults as well as military dependents, without requiring them to purchase school buses specifically designed for this latter purpose. This deviation would not permit any transportation of children that i s not already permitted by the current exception in 49 CFR 571.7(c).

Pursuant to the additional information provided in this letter explaining that GSA, in this case, is not a purchasing agent for the Armed Forces, but rather provides motor vehicles to the Armed Forces under the authority of section 211 of the Federal Pro perty and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended (40 U.S.C. 491) which provides for fleet services for use by Executive agencies, including the Armed Forces, we request that NHTSA grant a deviation from 49 CFR 571.7 to permit procurement of and assignment by the IFMS of buses for use by the Armed Forces.

If we may provide any assistance or further information concerning this request, please contact me on 501-1156.

ID: nht90-3.30

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 25, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; signature by Stephen P. Wood

TO: Wayne Brush -- Director, Material Management, Conceptor Industries, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Letter dated 4-20-90 to Clive Van Orden from Wayne Brush

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter to Mr. Clive Van Orden of our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance seeking an interpretation of this agency's requirements for a vehicle identification number (VIN), as set forth in 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number - Content Requirements, and Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number - Basic Requirements (49 CFR S571.115). You stated that your company plans to modify vans manufactured by General Motors (GM) to produce electric powered vehicles for sale in th e United States. You asked whether these vehicles may use the GM world manufacturer identifier (WMI), as well as a check digit, model year identification, and production sequence codes assigned by GM, and use an X as the engine type code to show that th e vehicles were actually manufactured by your company. As explained below, the answer to your question is no.

S4.1 of Standard No. 115 reads as follows:

Each vehicle manufactured in one stage shall have a VIN that is assigned by the manufacturer. Each vehicle manufactured in more than one stage shall have a VIN assigned by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer. Vehicle alterers, as sp ecified in 49 CFR S567.7, shall utilize the VIN assigned by the original manufacturer of the vehicle.

As described in your letter, Conceptor Industries plans to produce completed electric powered vehicles by using an assemblage of motor vehicle equipment produced by GM, including frame and chassis structure, steering, suspension, and braking systems. Ho wever, the assemblage provided to your company by GM would not include a power train. The absence of a power train means that this assemblage would not be an "incomplete vehicle," as that term is defined in S3 of Standard No. 115, so the Conceptor elect ric vehicles would not be considered to be manufactured in more than one stage. Your company would not qualify as a vehicle alterer, based on the information provided in your letter, because GM would not have already certified the vehicles modified by yo ur company. Thus, the electric powered vehicles produced by Conceptor would be considered to be vehicles manufactured in one stage, and the VIN for these vehicles would have to be assigned by Conceptor, the manufacturer of these vehicles.

Part 565 specifies the format and content of the VIN that Standard No. 115 requires your company to assign to its electric powered vehicles. In relevant part, 49 CFR S565.4 provides that:

The VIN shall consist of four sections of characters which shall be

grouped accordingly: (a) The first section shall consist of three characters which occupy positions one through three (1-3) in the VIN. This section shall uniquely identify the manufacturer, make and type of the motor vehicle if its manufacturer produces 500 or more motor vehicles of its type annually. If the manufacturer produces less than 500 motor vehicles of its type annually, those three characters, along with the third, fourth, and fifth characters of the fourth section shall uniquely identify the manufacturer, make and type of the motor vehicle. Under the approach suggested in your letter, GM would be identified as the manufacturer of the vehicle by the first three characters of the VIN, and the eighth character would indicate that Conceptor was the actual manufaCcturer. This approach would be plainly inconsistent with the requirements of S565.4 quoted above, because the regulation requires the first three characters in the VIN to identify the vehicle manufacturer. Your company is the manufacturer of these vehicles, not GM, so your company mus t be identified by the first three characters of the VIN. Furthermore, S565.4(b) provides that the eighth character in the VIN shall uniquely identify specified attributes of the vehicle, not identify the manufacturer. Hence, the approach suggested in y our letter would not comply with this agency's VIN requirements.

Additionally, you informed Dorothy Nakama of my staff in a July 3, 1990 telephone conversation that, at least in the initial years of your company's production of these vehicles, the annual production will be less than 500. If this is the case, you shou ld note that S565.4(a) requires your company to use not only the first three characters of the VIN to uniquely identify the manufacturer, make and type of the motor vehicle, but also the 12th, 13th, and 14th characters of the VIN as well to make this uni que identification.

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

ID: 2639y

AIR MAIL

Mr. Wayne Brush Director, Material Management Conceptor Industries, Inc. 521 Newpark Blvd. P. O. Box 149 Newmarket, Ontario Canada L3Y 4X7

Dear Mr. Brush:

Thank you for your letter to Mr. Clive Van Orden of our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance seeking an interpretation of this agency's requirements for a vehicle identification number (VIN), as set forth in 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number - Content Requirements, and Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number - Basic Requirements (49 CFR 571.115). You stated that your company plans to modify vans manufactured by General Motors (GM) to produce electric powered vehicles for sale in the United States. You asked whether these vehicles may use the GM world manufacturer identifier (WMI), as well as a check digit, model year identification, and production sequence codes assigned by GM, and use an X as the engine type code to show that the vehicles were actually manufactured by your company. As explained below, the answer to your question is no.

S4.1 of Standard No. 115 reads as follows:

Each vehicle manufactured in one stage shall have a VIN that is assigned by the manufacturer. Each vehicle manufactured in more than one stage shall have a VIN assigned by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer. Vehicle alterers, as specified in 49 CFR 567.7, shall utilize the VIN assigned by the original manufacturer of the vehicle.

As described in your letter, Conceptor Industries plans to produce completed electric powered vehicles by using an assemblage of motor vehicle equipment produced by GM, including frame and chassis structure, steering, suspension, and braking systems. However, the assemblage provided to your company by GM would not include a power train. The absence of a power train means that this assemblage would not be an "incomplete vehicle," as that term is defined in S3 of Standard No. 115, so the Conceptor electric vehicles would not be considered to be manufactured in more than one stage. Your company would not qualify as a vehicle alterer, based on the information provided in your letter, because GM would not have already certified the vehicles modified by your company. Thus, the electric powered vehicles produced by Conceptor would be considered to be vehicles manufactured in one stage, and the VIN for these vehicles would have to be assigned by Conceptor, the manufacturer of these vehicles.

Part 565 specifies the format and content of the VIN that Standard No. 115 requires your company to assign to its electric powered vehicles. In relevant part, 49 CFR 565.4 provides that:

The VIN shall consist of four sections of characters which shall be grouped accordingly: (a) The first section shall consist of three characters which occupy positions one through three (1-3) in the VIN, This section shall uniquely identify the manufacturer, make and type of the motor vehicle if its manufacturer produces 500 or more motor vehicles of its type annually. If the manufacturer produces less than 500 motor vehicles of its type annually, those three characters, along with the third, fourth, and fifth characters of the fourth section shall uniquely identify the manufacturer, make and type of the motor vehicle. * * *

Under the approach suggested in your letter, GM would be identified as the manufacturer of the vehicle by the first three characters of the VIN, and the eighth character would indicate that Conceptor was the actual manufacturer. This approach would be plainly inconsistent with the requirements of 565.4 quoted above, because the regulation requires the first three characters in the VIN to identify the vehicle manufacturer. Your company is the manufacturer of these vehicles, not GM, so your company must be identified by the first three characters of the VIN. Furthermore, 565.4(b) provides that the eighth character in the VIN shall uniquely identify specified attributes of the vehicle, not identify the manufacturer. Hence, the approach suggested in your letter would not comply with this agency's VIN requirements.

Additionally, you informed Dorothy Nakama of my staff in a July 3, 1990 telelphone conversation that, at least in the initial years of your company's production of these vehicles, the annual production will be less than 500. If this is the case, you should note that 565.4(a) requires your company to use not only the first three characters of the VIN to uniquely identify the manufacturer, make and type of the motor vehicle, but also the 12th, 13th, and 14th characters of the VIN as well to make this unique identification.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /ref:565#115 d:7/25/90

ID: nht90-4.65

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: November 27, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Cal Karl -- Minnesota State Patrol, District 4700-Commercial Vehicle Section

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-7-82 from F. Berndt to M.B. Mathieson; Also attached to letter dated 1-29-90 from C. Karl to M. Shaw (OCC 4403); Also attached to letter dated 1-18-90 from R.E. Meadows; Also attached to letter dated 1-8-90 from R. Marion to C. Karl; Also attached to letter from C. Karl to All School Bus LCR II's

TEXT:

This is in response to your letter to Marvin Shaw of my staff seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release (49 CFR S571.217). Specifically, you asked how S5.2.3.2, which applies to school buses, would affect the instal lation of certain designs of "vandal locks" on school buses. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain this safety standard for you.

Before I address your specific questions, I would like to provide some background information. Throughout this letter, I will use the term "vandal lock" to describe locking systems installed for the doors and emergency exits of school buses intended to prevent unauthorized persons from entering the school bus through those exits when the bus is unoccupied and unattended. S5.2.3.2, the relevant provision of Standard No. 217, reads as follows:

The engine starting system of a school bus shall not operate if any emergency exit is locked from either inside or outside the bus. For purposes of this requirement, "locked" means that the release mechanism cannot be activated by a person at the door w ithout a special device such as a key or special information such as a combination.

Your first question was whether S5.2.3.2 prohibits the use of a vandal lock system that, although it must be unlocked for the bus to start, can be relocked once the bus is started. The answer is that such locks are not prohibited by Standard No. 217. I have enclosed a copy of a December 7, 1982 letter to Mr. M. B. Mathieson in which NHTSA addressed this issue. As stated in that letter, "Nothing in Standard No. 217 prohibits the installation of locking doors (on a school bus) as long as the vehicle can not be started with the (emergency) door in the locked position." In other words, the prohibition in S5.2.3.2 focuses exclusively on whether the vehicle can be started when any emergency exit is locked. If the school bus cannot be started when an emerg ency exit is locked, the bus complies with S5.2.3.2, even if an emergency exit can be locked once the bus is started.

Your second question was whether S5.2.3.2 allows a vandal lock to be relocked after the vehicle is running without the use of a key or special information. The answer to this question is yes. As stated above, the prohibition in S5.2.3.2 focuses exclusi vely on whether the vehicle can be started when any emergency exit is locked. If the school bus cannot be

started when an emergency exit is locked, the bus complies with S5.2.3.2, even if an emergency exit can be locked once the bus is started. Nothing in S5.2.3.2 requires that any locks on emergency exits be relocked only by means of a key or some special information after the vehicle is started.

I appreciate your concern about potential problems that might arise if emergency doors are locked after a school bus is started. Nevertheless, regardless of whether you believe that NHTSA intended to make or should have made some provision to prevent em ergency exits on school buses from being relocked once the bus is started, it is not possible to interpret the language of S5.2.3.2 as including such a provision. Since an interpretation cannot add or delete requirements in the language of a safety stan dard, the only way whereby the standard could include a provision to prevent emergency exits on school buses from being relocked once the bus is started would be for this agency to undertake a rulemaking action to amend the current language of S5.2.3.2.

We are unaware of any safety need to commence such a rulemaking. We do not have any indication that there have been deaths or injuries to school bus occupants as a result of an emergency exit being relocked once the bus was started. Moreover, the poten tial hazards to school bus occupants absent any Standard No. 217 requirements on this subject seem minimal. School bus doors, including emergency doors, should not be locked when the bus is in operation, and we believe that, in practice, they remain unlo cked when the buses are in use. It is also our understanding that the vast majority of school buses with emergency doors that can be locked in this fashion are voluntarily equipped with warning buzzers that alert the driver to the fact that the doors ha ve been relocked.

I hope you find this information helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact David Greenburg of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or would like some additional information.

ID: 1985-02.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/19/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Joseph L. Hourihan

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Joseph L. Hourihan Vehicle Inspection Services, Room 438 Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles 100 Nashua Street Boston, Massachusetts 02114

Dear Mr. Hourihan:

This responds to your March 11, 1985 letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning our school bus safety standards. You asked who is responsible for determining, at the time of the initial sale of a bus, whether the vehicle's intended use is to transport school children. You also asked who is the party responsible for ensuring that a school buses complies with the motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses.

The responsibility for determining whether the vehicle's intended use is to transport school children rests with the seller of the school bus. The Vehicle Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, dealers or distributors from selling new buses for school transportation which do not comply with the Federal school bus safety standards. I have enclosed a Federal Register notice (40 FR 60033) that discusses the responsibility of manufacturers and dealers who know that a vehicle will be used to transport school children to sell school buses that comply with our school bus safety standards. As discussed in that notice, the agency believes that, of all the persons in the chain of distribution who are subject to the Vehicle Safety Act, the seller is most likely to have knowledge of the likely use of the vehicle. Of course, the seller is not held responsible for more than its knowledge of the purpose of the sale.

In response to your second question, under the Vehicle Safety Act, the manufacturer of a new school bus certifies that its vehicle meets the motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses. The party selling a new bus for school transportation is responsible for selling a complying school bus.

In your letter, you state that new 10- to 15-passenger buses are being sold to schools and school districts in Massachusetts for the transportation of students even though they may not comply with our school bus safety standards. We would appreciate learning more about instances in which a noncomplying bus may have been sold. Please provide any information you may have to NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, Room 6113, at the address given above. With respect to the future purchases of new vehicles, schools and school districts should keep in mind that the dealers are obligated to sell vehicles that meet the school bus safety standards. The dealers should know that they are at risk if they sell noncomplying vehicles.

In a telephone conversation with Ms. Hom of my staff on March 25, you requested that we send you the Federal Register notice (41 FR 28506) that interpreted the term "public school buses" to include buses owned and operated by a private contractor under contract with a State to provide transportation for students to and from public schools. You will find that notice enclosed.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosures

March 11, 1985

United States Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Attention: Chief Counsel Legal Section

Dear Sir:

I refer to the definitions "School bus" and "Schoolbus" as contained in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. It appears that the standards listed below are applicable to vehicles designed to carry more than ten passengers (generally van type vehicles), providing such vehicles are sold for the purpose of transporting school students. What is the opinion of the N.H.T.S.A. at the time of original sale as to who is responsible for determining the intended use of the vehicles and if the vehicles are in compliance with those F.M.V.S.S. specifically applicable to School Buses?

I am particularly interested in the application of Standards #217, #220, #222 and #221* (*which relates to a vehicle with a GVWR in excess of 10,000 lbs.) as it appears that factory vans, which have not been modified and which are not in compliance with the provisions of said standards, are being sold and utilized for the transportation of school students, said vans having a seating capacity in excess of ten and up to fifteen passengers.

Very truly yours,

Joseph L. Hourihan Supervising Hearings Officer Vehicle Inspection Services

JLH/eam

ID: aiam4056

Dear Mr. Kirchoff: Thank you for your letter of November 13, 1985, to Stephen Oesch of m staff asking how our standards would affect a diagnostic and sensor warning light for a self-contained airbag system you are developing. You explained that the system would be mounted in the steering wheel and would have the diagnostic and sensor light located on the steering wheel horn pad.; Your warning light would be affected by Safety Standard No. 208 *Occupant Crash Protection*. S4.5.2 of the standard requires crash-deployed restraint systems, such as airbag systems, to have an indicator that monitors the readiness of the system. In addition, the indicator must be clearly visible from the driver's seat. Placing your diagnostic and sensor warning light in the center of the horn pad should ensure that it is visible to the driver.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: labelsonuppertetherandloweranchorage

Mr. John Nagel
AMSAFE Commercial Products
240-C North 48^th Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85043





Dear Mr. Nagel:

This responds to your letter of February 9, 2001, which you transmitted to this office via facsimile. In that letter, you ask whether under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR 571.213), the following statement should be put on the lower anchorage belt and/or the upper tether belt:

"CONFORMS TO FMVSS 213/ FMVSS 302."

By lower anchorage belt and upper tether belt, you mean, respectively: (a) the straps of a child restraint system which attach to components that enable the restraint to be securely fastened to the lower anchorages of a child restraint anchorage system (see S5.9(a) of FMVSS No. 213); and (b) the strap of a child restraint system to which a tether hook is attached (S5.9(b)). You explain that your company supplies the belts to a child restraint manufacturer, which then sells the belts with the completed child restraint. You also plan on selling the lower anchorage belts directly to parents who then use the belts to retrofit their existing child restraint systems.

Is the Label Required by FMVSS No. 213?

FMVSS No. 213 does not require you to put such a label on either belt. FMVSS No. 213 applies to new child restraint systems, and not to components of child restraints, such as the belts you supply to child restraint manufacturers.

Manufacturers of child restraints are required to certify that their child restraints meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 213. They certify their restraints by placing a label on the child restraint system that reads: "This child restraint system conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards." (S5.5.2(e)). Because FMVSS No. 213 does not apply to component parts, such as lower anchorage belts or upper tether belts, which are supplied to manufacturers for installation in child restraints, such component parts are not required to have a similar label.

May You Voluntarily Label the Belts?

Whether the label is permissible depends, in part, on how you market and sell the belts. As noted above, you plan to market and sell the belts in two different ways. You plan to sell the lower anchorage belt and upper tether belt to manufacturers and you plan to sell the lower anchorage belt directly to the public. The answer to your question differs for each of these situations, so each situation will be discussed separately. One consideration to bear in mind is that a manufacturer cannot certify that its product meets the requirements of a standard if that particular standard does not actually apply to that product. To do so would be misleading to consumers.

1. Selling the Belts to a Manufacturer

A. "CONFORMS TO FMVSS 213"

Your label is permissible with respect to the statement on the tether strap that refers to FMVSS No. 213, ("CONFORMS TO FMVSS 213..."). However, S5.9 (a) of FMVSS No. 213 does not require child restraints to have the lower anchorage belts until September 1, 2002. A manufacturer cannot certify to a requirement that has not yet become mandatory. Accordingly, you may label the upper tether belt as conforming to FMVSS No. 213, but until September 1, 2002, you can not label the lower anchorage belt with a certification or a "conforms to FMVSS 213" statement.

B. "CONFORMS TO FMVSS 302"

You may label the belts "CONFORMS TO FMVSS 302." Paragraph S5.7 of FMVSS No. 213 specifies that each material used in a child restraint system shall conform to S4 ("requirements") of FMVSS No. 302, "Flammability of Interior Materials." Thus, FMVSS No. 302 is incorporated by reference into Standard No. 213 and applies to the belts. Therefore, a label stating that the belts conform to FMVSS No. 302 would not be misleading.

2. Selling the Lower Anchorage Belts to the Public

You also wish to sell the lower anchorage belt with the abovementioned label directly to the public so consumers can purchase it to retrofit their existing child seats. The use of the label in this instance is not permissible. FMVSS Nos. 213 and 302 do not apply to items of equipment sold in the aftermarket. Accordingly, in this instance, you cannot label the lower anchorage belt as conforming to either FMVSS No. 213 or FMVSS No. 302 because doing so would be misleading.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:213#225#302
d.6/1/01

ID: 77-2.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/16/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Chrysler Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your November 29 and December 20, 1976, petitions for rulemaking to amend the definition of "unloaded vehicle weight." The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) grants your November 29 petition for rulemaking and denies your December 20 petition.

The NHTSA, in a letter of interpretation to the Jeep Corporation, stated that "unloaded vehicle weight" does not include the weight of accessories ordinarily removed when they are not in use. Your November 29 petition for rulemaking suggests that we formally incorporate this interpretation into the definition of "unloaded vehicle weight" for purposes of clarity. The agency agrees that this change should be made. Accordingly, we intend to commence rulemaking in response to your petition.

Your December 20, 1976, petition amended your November 29, 1976, petition by suggesting that the agency permit barrier testing of specified vehicles at the lesser of the unloaded vehicle weight or 5,500 pounds. We have determined that this proposal would establish arbitrary weights for vehicles undergoing compliance testing which could result in vehicles being subjected to crash tests in a condition which is not representative of their actual on-road condition. Your suggested change in the definition could thus result in a reduction in the effectiveness of some motor vehicle safety standards. In Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity, the Congress mandated that the agency not diminish the level of safety established at that time in the standard. Your proposal, if implemented, could violate that Congressional mandate since vehicles could be tested at a weight which differs from their actual weight. Therefore, the recommendations advanced in your December 20 petition are denied to the extent that they differ from those originally proposed in your November 29 petition.

SINCERELY,

CHRYSLER CORPORATION

December 20, 1976

Mr. John W. Snow Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Petition for Amendment Definition of "Unloaded Vehicle Weight" Part 571 - Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

A number of petitions have been submitted to the NHTSA requesting a delay in the effective date of the amended requirements of MVSS 212 - Windshield Mounting as they apply to light duty multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses.

Chrysler Corporation supports those requests and urges the Administrator to grant this delay.

We believe, however, that the requested delay in the effective date of Standard 212 is only a part of a much broader issue that must be addressed by the NHTSA with respect to special purpose vehicles. These vehicles usually are completed by independent body builders who may install any one of a number of different types of bodies to meet the needs of the final purchaser, and generally are classified as vehicles manufactured in two or more stages for purposes of the safety regulations. In many cases very specialized bodies are added to produce such vehicles as wreckers, hydraulic aerial ladder trucks, mechanical road service trucks, etc. Most of these bodies, by their very nature, have essentially no load carrying capability. On the other hand, because of their heavy weight, the addition of these bodies will cause the unloaded vehicle weight to be very close to its gross vehicle weight rating. This situation is exemplified by the following comparison of weights for our D300 pickup truck and a D300 chassis-cab with a utility body and hydraulic aerial ladder.

Gross Unloaded Vehicle Chassis Body Vehicle Weight Truck Weight Weight Weight Rating D300 Pickup 4309 lbs. 458 lbs. 4767 lbs. 10,000 D300 Chassis-Cab with Utility Body 4309 lbs. 3481 lbs. 7800 lbs. 10,000 and Hydraulic Aerial Ladder

Standard 212, as well as Standards 219 - Windshield Zone Intrusion and 301 - Fuel System Integrity, currently requires the barrier impact testing of completed light duty trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles at essentially their unloaded vehicle weight. Recognizing that the forces generated in a barrier impact test are directly proportional to vehicle weight, it is obvious that the requirements are much more severe for vehicles equipped with heavier specialized bodies than for the standard production base vehicles, even though both types may be operated on the highway at the same overall vehicle weight.

Previous industry responses to notices of proposed rulemaking on MVSS 301, Docket 70-20, discussed in detail the reasons why it would be more reasonable and practical to conduct barrier impact tests on light duty trucks, MPV's, and buses at their unloaded vehicle weight. It was pointed out that while conducting these tests at the GVWR may simulate a very small number of severe accidents, the overall ramifications of such a requirement, when viewed in terms of total highway injury reduction, do not support such a severe test. Even though these vehicles are at times loaded to their maximum capacity, the type of accident circumstances encountered and the frequent unloaded or partially loaded usage of light duty trucks, MPV's, and buses hardly justifies a fully loaded fixed barrier collision test. Moreover, the structural changes required to increase the overall stiffness so that a fully loaded vehicle might comply would tend to make it a "battering ram". We estimate that the overall stiffness of a 10,000 lb. GVWR truck may have to be increased 2.25 times. This may have the effect of subjecting vehicle occupants to higher deceleration loadings, and in fact may increase the risk of injury to occupants in other vehicles involved in vehicle to vehicle collisions. In view of these facts and the possible

adverse effects on highway safety, the NHTSA determined that testing these vehicles at theirunloaded vehicle weight would produce a more reasonable and practical test condition. Because of the way the cited standards are written, however, this rationale is not applied to special purpose vehicles which still must be tested at a weight very close to their GVWR.

Unless this problem is corrected in the various standards cited, the effect in many cases will be to impose a real hardship on the many small body manufacturers who must certify that the vehicles they complete meet all of the applicable safety requirements. The alternative is for the users of these special purpose vehicles to purchase vehicles with a GVWR over 10,000 lbs. which are not required to meet these safety provisions, are much more expensive - $ 1,000 to $ 2,000 more, and are less fuel efficient. No useful purpose would be served by forcing users to purchase larger, more expensive vehicles which are not covered by these standards. We believe the NHTSA should recognize the problem created by the standards as written with respect to special purpose light duty vehicles, and should amend the regulation to allow their testing at a more reasonable test weight approximately equal to their pickup truck, van, or other vehicle counterpart.

One way to accomplish the above would be to amend the definition of "unloaded vehicle weight" by establishing a maximum unloaded vehicle weight for purposes of conducting barrier impact tests on special purpose vehicles which are derived from trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs. or less. This approach would allow vehicles equipped with specialized bodies to be tested at the same weight used for testing the high volume pickup trucks and vans from which these vehicles are derived. Most special purpose vehicles will have a base vehicle counterpart and will fall under this category. For those few which may not, we recommend that an upper limit of 5,500 lbs. be established. In our opinion this is a reasonable alternative limit since practically all light duty production completed trucks and vans have an "unloaded vehicle weight" of less than 5,500 lbs. On this basis Chrysler Corporation petitions the Administrator to amend the definition of "unloaded vehicle weight" to that show below. We also have included the change in the definition which we requested in our petition for amendment dated November 29, 1976, copy attached.

"Unloaded vehicle weight" means the weight of a vehicle with maximum capacity of all fluids necessary for operation of the vehicle, but without cargo, occupants, or accessories that are ordinarily removed from the vehicle when they are not in use. For purposes of barrier impact testing special purpose vehicles which are derived from multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, or buses with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs. or less, the unloaded vehicle weight shall be either that of the completed comparable model vehicle from which the special purpose vehicle is derived or 5,500 lbs., whichever is less.

In our opinion the adoption of this definition is in the public interest and would not depreciate motor vehicle safety.

S. L. TERRY Vice President Public Responsibility and Consumer Affairs

CHRYSLER CORPORATION

November 29, 1976

John W. Snow Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Petition for Amendment Definition of "Unloaded Vehicle Weight" Part 571 - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

Chrysler Corporation recently became aware of the NHTSA's July 16, 1976 response to Jeep Corporation's petition requesting that MVSS 301 - Fuel System Integrity be amended to allow the removal of all types of work-performing accessories prior to conducting the required impact tests. The response denied Jeep's petitions, but at the same time provided an interpretation permitting the removal of certain work-performing accessories. This interpretation is of significant concern to us.

For several years we have been marketing a light duty, four-wheel drive truck equipped with a factory-installed snow plow. The continued production of this vehicle after September 1, 1976 necessitates that it comply with the applicable requirements of MVSS 301. Our certification test program for this model vehicle was based on several previous NHTSA interpretations on the testing of vehicles equipped with optional work performing accessories. On February 9, 1976 the NHTSA responded to an earlier Jeep Corporation petition regarding work-performing equipment by stating, "As a general matter, the NHTSA has established that a vehicle which is designed to accept an optional component must be capable of meeting all applicable standards with the component installed" (underlined for emphasis). Similar responses provided to General Motors on March 1, 1976 and to Chrysler Corporation on August 27, 1976 also clearly indicated that vehicles must be capable of meeting the requirements of MVSS 301 when equipped with whatever optional equipment is installed on the vehicle at the time of sale. Accordingly, our compliance tests were conducted on this model vehicle with the snow plow blade installed.

Now, however, the NHTSA has provided a new and substantially different interpretation of these same requirements by stating to Jeep Corporation:

"The weight of those accessories that are ordinarily removed from a vehicle when they are not in use, however, is not included in the 'weight of a vehicle'. Consequently, accessories in this latter group [snow plow, spreaders, and tow bars] would be removed by the NHTSA prior to testing for conformity to Standard No. 301-75."

Under this new interpretation vehicles equipped with snow plows would be tested with the blade removed rather than with it installed as required by the NHTSA's previous interpretation. This is a substantive change in the requirements which could materially affect compliance with MVSS 301.

Rather than making this substantive change by interpretation, we believe the new provisions should be incorporated in the basic regulations. Specifically, we request that the definition of "unloaded vehicle weight" be amended so that the interpretation is clearly recognized as part of MVSS 301 as well as any other standards that involve testing at unloaded vehicle weight. To accomplish this we recommend that consideration be given to adopting the following new definition for "unloaded vehicle weight": "Unloaded vehicle weight" means the weight of a vehicle with maximum capacity of all fluids necessary for operation of the vehicle, but without cargo, occupants, or accessories that are ordinarily removed from the vehicle when they are not in use.

S. L. TERRY Vice President Public Responsibility and Consumer Affairs