ID: nht94-5.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 23, 1994

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Paul N. Wagner, President, Bornemann Products, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 8-26-88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES TO GLENN J. DUNCAN; ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 9-28-94 FROM PAUL N. WAGNER TO MARY VERSAILLES (OCC 10392)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of September 28, 1994, requesting an interpretation of how the requirements of S4.2.1 in Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, would apply to an integrated seat. Section S4.2.1 states

Except for vertical movement of nonlocking suspension type occupant seats in trucks or buses, the seat shall remain in its adjusted position during the application of each force specified in S4.2.

Your questions and our response to each follow.

1) Can the agency respond specifically to what the seat adjustment refers to? Does this mean only that once a seat recliner (used only for comfort), or a seat slide track, is positioned at its normal driving position, or appropriate testing position, it may not be moved until the completion of the test?

Or, does it mean that while the static test is conducted a recliner mechanism, for example, can not change position during the test, due to bending or twisting, or release of internal parts, even though the frame did not break during the test? In oth er words, the recliner may bend or twist, but the seating structure remained intact, despite deformation of the recliner mechanism.

Section S4.2.1 requires a seat, with one exception, to remain in the position to which it was adjusted while the force specified in S4.2 is applied. The exception is that vertical movement of nonlocking suspension type occupant seats may occur while the load is applied. Section S4.2 requires a seat to withstand certain specified forces. NHTSA has previously stated that S4.2 "allows some deformation of the seats during the force test, provided that structural integrity of the seats is maintained." (Se e August 26, 1988 letter to Mr. Glenn L. Duncan, Esq.) NHTSA would not consider any deformation allowed by S4.2 (for example, bending or twisting) by itself to be a change in adjustment position. However, if bending or twisting resulted in the seat movin g from one adjustment position to another (for example, a change in detent position within the adjustment mechanism), there would be a change in adjustment position.

In the example provided in your letter, the adjustment position of the seat back recliner mechanism is caused by the gear mechanism being "destroyed," even though the recliner mechanism itself does not separate from the seat. It appears that this scenar io involves more than deformation as the seat back is free to move to a variety of adjustment positions. Therefore, the seat would not comply with S4.2.1.

2) An integrated seat has several angle adjustments on its recliner, which are only for the purpose of comfort. In reference to the static testing, does the integrated seat need to be tested in its designed riding position, or need it be tested in ev ery possible reclined position?

Both S4.2(a) and S4.2(b) require the seat to withstand the specified load "(i)n any position to which it can be adjusted." The usage of the term "any," when "used in connection with a range of values or set of items," is specifically defined at 49 CFR 57 1.4 as meaning "the totality of the items or values, any one of which may be selected by the Administration for testing." Thus, NHTSA may chose to test a seat in any of the range of possible reclined positions. Section S4.2(c) incorporates the requiremen ts of S4.2(a) and S4.2(b); therefore, NHTSA may also chose to test an integrated seat in any of the range of possible reclined positions.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 11210

Fred H. Pritzker, Esq.
Pritzker & Meyer, P.A.
Suite 1275 Peavey Building
730 Second Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402

Dear Mr. Pritzker:

This concerns your August 29, 1995 letter about the replacement of a rear seat in a 1993 GEO Tracker with a speaker box. In response to your request that we speak with you about the issues raised in that letter, Mr. Edward Glancy of my staff spoke with you by telephone. In that conversation, you requested a written opinion. Our opinion is set forth below.

According to your letter, the son of the Tracker owner took the vehicle to the local outlet of a national electronics "super store" to upgrade the vehicle's automobile stereo equipment. An employee of that store removed the rear seat and replaced it with a speaker box. As part of this process, the female portion of the seat belt buckle was removed. You stated that the speaker box has a ledge not unlike a bench-type seat, the speaker box was strong enough for a person to sit on, and was carpeted.

You represent a person who was sitting on this speaker box when the vehicle was involved in a serious collision, and believe that the electronics company violated the "make inoperative" provision of Federal law, 49 U.S.C. 30122(b).

As Mr. Glancy explained to you by telephone, NHTSA cannot make a determination as to whether a company violated the "make inoperative" provision outside a compliance proceeding. I can, however, provide general information on how this provision applies in such a situation.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to establish Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), which specifies performance requirements for the protection of vehicle occupants in crashes. Standard No. 208 required model year 1993 passenger cars and other light vehicles to have a Type 2 (lap/shoulder) seat belt assembly at each forward- facing rear outboard designated seating position, and either a Type 1 (lap) or Type 2 seat belt assembly at all other rear designated seating positions.

NHTSA's safety standards apply only to new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. However, section 30122(b) applies in the case of used as well as new vehicles. That section reads as follows:

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable safety standard prescribed under this chapter unless the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business reasonably believes the vehicle or equipment will not be used (except for testing or a similar purpose during maintenance or repair) when the device or element is inoperative.

I can offer the following thoughts concerning how section 30122(b) would apply in the context of a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business removing rear seat belts. First, electronics companies which install stereo equipment in motor vehicles are subject to section 30122(b), given the broad language "manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business."

Second, some specific examples will illustrate how answering the question of whether a particular action Amakes inoperative@ a device installed in compliance with a Federal safety standard depends on the underlying factual circumstances. As noted above, under Standard No. 208, seat belts were required to be installed at the rear designated seating positions in the Tracker. The definition of "designated seating position," set forth in 49 CFR 571.3, reads as follows:

Designated seating position means any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile female, if the overall seat configuration and design and vehicle design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats. . . .

The simple removal of rear seat belts from designated seating positions, without other modifications to a vehicle, would obviously make inoperative a device, i.e., seat belts, installed in compliance with Standard No. 208. Similarly, the removal of rear seat belts, coupled with replacing the rear seat with another rear seat, would make the seat belts inoperative (assuming the rear seat belts were not replaced). However, if rear seat belts were removed as part of permanently converting a passenger van to a cargo van by removing the rear seat, the removal of the seat belts would not make inoperative a device installed in compliance with a safety standard. This is because Standard No. 208 would not have required rear seat belts in the absence of rear designated seating positions.

Your letter raises the question of whether a speaker box of the type installed by the electronics company would be considered to provide designated seating positions. I have enclosed a copy of the final rule establishing the designated seating position definition (44 FR 23229, April 19, 1979). As discussed in that notice, any position likely to be used while the vehicle is in motion will be considered a designated seating position. The notice includes several discussions which are relevant to the issue of whether a position is likely to be used while the vehicle is in motion. Included is a discussion that a manufacturer would not be responsible for abusive or unorthodox use of a particular position.

If you have further questions, please feel free to call Mr. Glancy at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:208#VSA d:12/22/95

ID: aiam1713

Dear Mr. Pruett: This is in response to your letter of November 13, 1974, in which yo request confirmation of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's position concerning the testing of products which this agency regulates.; As I stated when I discussed this matter with you, NHTSA's concern i not with the testing procedure a manufacturer utilizes to ensure compliance, but rather that the product complies when NHTSA tests it. Therefore, as you point out, manufacturers should exercise due care that their products will meet the requirements of the standard when tested by NHTSA under the procedures specified in the standard. There is no need to ritualistically test each variant, such as color, of a product if the manufacturer has good reason to believe that the varying quality does not affect the safety performance in question.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: 24256ogm

Doris Schaller-Schnedl, Homologation Engineer
Magna Steyr Engineering
Steyr Daimler Puch Fahrzeugtechnik AG & Co KG
Liebenauer Hauptstrasse 317
A-8041
Graz, Austria




Dear Ms. Schaller-Schnedl:

This responds to your electronic mail message in which you indicate that your company would like to install Type 2 seat belts equipped with load limiters for use in the rear outboard seating positions of a passenger vehicle. Your message notes that you would like to employ load limiters as you believe that the devices would help reduce the possibility of injury in a crash. You indicate, however, that if you equip the seat belts in question with load limiters, the belts will not comply with the minimum performance requirements for belt elongation found in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. Your message also indicates your belief that S4.5(b) of Standard No. 209 provides that belts equipped with load limiters need not meet the elongation requirements if these belts are installed in any designated seating position that is subject to the requirements of S5.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. As your message observes that S5.1 applies only to front outboard designated seating positions, you ask if load limiters that do not meet the elongation requirements of Standard No. 209 may only be installed in front outboard designated seating positions. Finally, if it is the agency's position that load limiter equipped belts may only be installed in the front outboard seating positions, you ask if belts equipped with these devices may be installed in rear outboard seating positions if the belts meet the performance requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208 when tested with a dummy placed in the rear outboard seating position.

For the reasons explained below, load limiters that cause a seat belt to not meet the elongation requirements of Standard No. 209 may not be installed in seating positions other than the front outboard seating positions.

Standard No. 209 establishes minimum performance requirements for seat belts and contains a number of provisions relating to elongation in seat belts and seat belt assemblies. The elongation of belt webbing is governed by S4.2(c), while the elongation performance of Type 1 and Type 2 belt assemblies is controlled by S4.4(a)(2), S4.4(b)(4) and S4.4(b)(5).

Load limiters are intended to manage the forces imposed on an occupant when the occupant moves forward against the belt during a crash. To achieve this purpose, load limiters allow the belt to yield, in a controlled fashion, to the forces generated by restraining an occupant. In order to allow the use of load limiters while ensuring that belts equipped with the devices continue to provide a minimum level of safety, S4.5 of Standard No. 209 provides as follows:

S4.5 Load-limiter.


(a) A Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly that includes a load-limiter is not required to comply with the elongation requirements of S4.2(c), S4.4(a)(2), S4.4(b)(4) or S4.4(b)(5).

(b) A seat belt assembly that includes a load limiter and that does not comply with the elongation requirements of this standard may be installed in motor vehicles at any designated seating position that is subject to the requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208 ( 571.208).

As you observe in your message, S4.5 provides that a seat belt equipped with a load limiter is not subject to the elongation requirements of Standard No. 209 if that belt is installed at a designated seating position that is subject to the requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208. S5.1 establishes the minimum performance standards for occupant protection in a frontal crash and includes, in S5.1.1, the requirements for performance in a 48 km/h (30 mph) frontal crash test employing a 50th percentile male dummy secured by a Type 2 belt in a front outboard seating position. Because the requirements of S5.1.1 provide assurance that seat belts will provide a minimum level of safety in a frontal crash, S4.5 of Standard No. 209 excludes belts with load limiters from meeting the elongation requirements of Standard No. 209 for any seating position that is tested under S5.1. As S5.1 applies only to front outboard seating positions, belts with load limiters installed at rear outboard seating positions must meet the elongation requirements of Standard No. 209.

Your message also asks if a manufacturer wishing to install belts with load limiters in a rear outboard seating position may comply with S4.5 of Standard No. 209 by verifying the performance of the belts through testing the belts by performing testing as set forth in S5.1 on the rear outboard seats. The answer is that belts installed at rear seating positions are subject to the elongation requirements and must meet them.

If you have any questions, please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at (202) 366-5263.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel


ref:209
d.9/19/01

ID: aiam3219

Dear Mr. Williams: This responds to your February 12, 1980, letter asking severa questions about the applicability of Federal safety standards to an imported motor vehicle. In general, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration requires all imported motor vehicles to comply with the safety standards in effect on the date of their importation.; In response to your first question, Standard No. 208, *Occupant Cras Protection*, requires each seating position in a passenger car to be equipped with a seat belt assembly as of January 1, 1968. Therefore, the rear bench seat of a 1972 passenger car was required by Federal regulations to have seat belts. If the vehicle to which you refer was imported without seat belts, the importer would have violated the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.; In your second question, you ask what standards apply to a vehicle tha was used by its manufacturer as a company vehicle and then sold as a used vehicle to an individual. The vehicle would be required to comply with the standards in effect on the date of its manufacture or, in the case of an import, on the date on which it was imported. In a related question, you ask whether some of the safety systems installed in a vehicle can be disconnected. An individual is permitted to disconnect safety systems on his or her own vehicle. However, no repair business, manufacturer, dealer, or distributor may render inoperative any safety device or element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with the safety standards.; Finally, you ask whether a manufacturer may import into the country vehicle that does not comply with the safety standards. The answer to this question is no. An imported vehicle must comply with the safety standards in effect on the date of its importation into this country.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: 8112

Mr. William R. Willen
Managing Counsel
Product Legal Group
American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
1919 Torrance Boulevard
Torrance, CA 90501-2746

Dear Mr. Willen:

This responds to your letter of December 7, 1992 requesting an interpretation of the definition of "designated seating position" in 49 CFR Section 571.3. You request confirmation of your belief that a proposed Honda seat design would have two designated seating positions. For the proposed design, "(t)he hip room is 44.2 inches over the length of the seat, and the seat width is only 39 inches. The seat is flat and does not have stiff inboard seat belt receptacles."

The term "designated seating position" is defined at 49 CFR 571.3 as:

any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats. Any bench or split-bench seat in a passenger car, truck or multipurpose passenger vehicle with a GVWR less than 10,000 pounds, having greater than 50 inches of hip room (measured in accordance with SAE Standard J1100(a)) shall have not less than three designated seating positions, unless the seat design or vehicle design is such that the center position cannot be used for seating.

If the seat has only 44.2 inches of hip room, the seat would probably qualify as having only two seating positions, since this value is below the 50-inch specification in the definition of "designated seating position." Please note, however, that the 50-inch specification does not mean that some vehicle seats with less than 50 inches of hip room should not also have more than two designated seating positions if the vehicle and seat design is such that three positions would likely be used. The specification is merely the amount of space the agency will consider as conclusive evidence that there should be at least three designated seating positions.

You ask if our answer would be different if fixed or movable armrests were provided. A fixed armrest does affect the measurement of designated seating position, since a fixed armrest would impede a person from sitting in the center position. NHTSA has stated in the preamble to the rule adopting the definition of designated seating position that the space occupied by a fixed, stationary armrest "would not be considered hip room and would not be included in the measurement of the 50-inch limitation." 44 FR 23229; April 19, 1979. A fixed armrest on your seat would show your intent that the position is not intended to be used as a seat.

Your letter also asked if the interpretation would be different if the seat width was greater than 39 inches. The number of designated seating positions is determined by the hip room, therefore, if the hip room remained the same, the seat would have the same number of designated seating positions even if the seat width was increased. Finally, you asked if the interpretation would be different if the seat were installed in a wider vehicle or positioned differently in the vehicle. Again, those modifications would only require an increase in the number of designated seating positions if the hip room were increased by these changes.

Finally, I emphasize that this letter only represents the agency's opinion based on the information supplied in your letter. NHTSA does not pass approval on any vehicle design, prior to the actual events that underlie certification. It is up to the manufacturer to determine whether its vehicles comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations, and to certify its vehicles in accordance with that determination.

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

ref:571.3 d:2/24/93

ID: nht93-1.49

DATE: 02/24/93

FROM: JOHN WOMACK -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: WILLIAM R. WILLEN -- MANAGING COUNSEL, PRODUCT LEGAL GROUP, AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-7-92 FROM WILLIAM R. WILLEN TO PAUL JACKSON RICE (OCC 8112)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of December 7, 1992 requesting an interpretation of the definition of "designated seating position" in 49 CFR Section 571.3. You request confirmation of your belief that a proposed Honda seat design would have two designated seating positions. For the proposed design, "(t)he hip room is 44.2 inches over the length of the seat, and the seat width is only 39 inches. The seat is flat and does not have stiff inboard seat belt receptacles."

The term "designated seating position" is defined at 49 CFR @ 571.3 as:

any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats. Any bench or split-bench seat in a passenger car, truck or multipurpose passenger vehicle with a GVWR less than 10,000 pounds, having greater than 50 inches of hip room (measured in accordance with SAE Standard J1100 (a)) shall have not less than three designated seating positions, unless the seat design or vehicle design is such that the center position cannot be used for seating.

If the seat has only 44.2 inches of hip room, the seat would probably qualify as having only two seating positions, since this value is below the 50-inch specification in the definition of "designated seating position." Please note, however, that the 50-inch specification does not mean that some vehicle seats with less than 50 inches of hip room should not also have more than two designated seating positions if the vehicle and seat design is such that three positions would likely be used. The specification is merely the amount of space the agency will consider as conclusive evidence that there should be at least three designated seating positions.

You ask if our answer would be different if fixed or movable armrests were provided. A fixed armrest does affect the measurement of designated seating position, since a fixed armrest would impede a person from sitting in the center position. NHTSA has stated in the preamble to the rule adopting the definition of designated seating position that the space occupied by a fixed, stationary armrest "would not be considered hip room and would not be included in the measurement of the 50-inch limitation." 44 FR 23229; April 19, 1979. A fixed armrest on your seat would show your intent that the position is not intended to be used as a seat.

Your letter also asked if the interpretation would be different if the seat width was greater than 39 inches. The number of designated seating positions is determined by the hip room, therefore, if the hip room remained the same, the seat would have the same number of designated seating positions even if the seat width was increased. Finally, you asked if the interpretation would be different if the seat were installed in a wider vehicle or positioned differently in the vehicle. Again, those modifications would only require an increase in the number of designated seating positions if the hip room were increased by these changes.

Finally, I emphasize that this letter only represents the agency's opinion based on the information supplied in your letter. NHTSA does not pass approval on any vehicle design, prior to the actual events that underlie certification. It is up to the manufacturer to determine whether its vehicles comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations, and to certify its vehicles in accordance with that determination.

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.

ID: 86-6.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/31/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. William Wallace

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. William Wallace Assistant Manager Chemical Commodities New York City Transit Authority 25 Jamaica Avenue Brooklyn NY 11207

Dear Mr. Wallace:

Thank you for your letter of June 19, 1986, concerning how our regulations would affect the use of certain glazing materials in buses. You explained that the Transit Authority has recently contracted to have several hundred buses rehabilitated. As a part of that pork, the aide glazing of the buses was replaced with glazing that contained the following markings,"Lexan, MR 5000 sheet, ANSI % 26-1, Camplas, NY."

Subsequent to receipt of your letter, we received additional Information from General Electric, the manufacturer of Lexan, concerning the glazing material used in the side windows of your buses. According to General Electric, the Lexan glazing material used in these windows can meet all of the performance requirements set in Standard No. 205 for "AS-5" glazing materials. The glazing material apparently was not marked as "AS-5" material. As discussed below, if the only markings on the glazing are the markings you described in your letter, the glazing apparently does not comply pith the marking requirements of Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials.

Standard No. 205 specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in new vehicles and glazing sold as replacement equipment. (The various types of glazing are designated as "items" in the standard.) Plastic glazing materials, such as Lexan, can be used in a number of different locations in a bus depending on which performance requirements the glazing meets. If the plastic glazing meets the requirements set for AS-5 glazing materials, It can be used in any window in a bus, except for the windshield, the windows to the immediate right and left of the driver, and the rearmost windows, if used for driving Visibility.

In addition to setting performance requirements for different items of glazing, the standard requires glazing materials to contain certain markings. The marking requirements of 56 of the standard vary depending on the intended use of the glazing and the person that is marking the glazing. At a minimum, the standard requires the glazing to be marked with the AS number (which indicates that the material meets the performance requirements set for that "item" of glazing material), a model number and the manufacturer's logo. The information you provided about the markings on the glazing installed in your buses indicates that the glazing does not have an AS number marked on it.

Any glazing sold for use in a motor vehicle must conform to the applicable requirements of Standard No. 205. Since there appears to be an apparent noncompliance, we have been in contact with General Electric to obtain further information about this possible noncompliance.

Our regulations do not preclude the Transit Authority from operating a vehicle with noncomplying glazing materials: however, you should check with State authorities to determine the effect of New York law on operating these buses.

Thank you for bringing this matter to the attention of the agency: If you need further information, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

June 19, 1986

Office of the Chief Counsel NHTSA 400 7th Street, SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sir:

The New York City Transit Authority recently contracted to have several hundred buses rehabilitated. As part of this process, the side glazing on these buses was replaced with glazing marked as follows:

LEXAN MR 5000 SHEET ANSI Z 26-1 CAMPLAS, NY

The Authority has questioned the legality of operating buses with this material and would appreciate any comments your office may have to offer regarding this matter.

Sincerely,

William Wallace Assistant Manager, Chemical Commodities

ID: 86-4.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/07/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Larry H. McEntire -- Administrator, School Transportation, Florida Dept of Education

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Larry H McEntire Administrator, School Transportation Florida Department of Education Tallahassee, Florida 32301

I regret the delay in responding to your letter to this office asking whether certain "mini-vans" designed to carry a maximum of eight persons are classified by NHTSA as "passenger cars" or "multi-purpose passenger vehicles" (MPV's), for purposes of complying with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

I would like to begin by clarifying that the classification of a particular vehicle is determined in the first instance by its manufacturer, and not by NHTSA. Under our certification requirements, (49 CFR Part 567), manufacturers are required to specify the type of their vehicles in accordance with the definitions set forth in part 571.3 of our regulations and must certify that their motor vehicles comply with all the motor vehicle safety standards applicable to that type. We define an MPV in Part 571.3 as "a motor vehicle . . . designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation."

Information we have received regarding manufacturer certification discloses that manufacturers classify cargo-carrying models of the Ford Aerostar, and G.M. Astro and Safari as "trucks". A "truck" is defined in Part 571.3 as "a motor vehicle . . . except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment." We understand that passenger models of mini- vans designed to carry up to eight passengers utilize the same type of chassis used in truck models. It is likely, therefore, that the passenger model mini-vans you asked about would be classified by the "MVP" classification given by manufacturers to the Chrysler mini-van and Toyota Van.

On a related matter, you asked for our comments on your Department's recommendation to their school boards that they not condone parent's use of conventional vans (i.e., vans not meeting Federal or State school bus safety regulations) to transport school children to school-related events. Mr. Arnold Spencer of Rockledge, Florida, recently wrote to our office concerning the above recommendation and requested us to explain how our school bus regulations apply to persons owning vans. I have enclosed a copy of our April 25, 1986 response to Mr. Spencer which you might find helpful.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact us.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

May 9, 1986

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, Southwest Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I am writing in regards to an earlier letter written to you on December 9, 1985 requesting your assistance in clarifying whether mini-vans are defined as "passenger cars" or "multi-purpose vehicles".

Attached is a copy of the earlier correspondence for your information. Your earliest response would be appreciated.

Sincerely,

Larry H. McEntire Administrator School Transportation

LHM/cs

attachment

December 9, 1985

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, Southwest Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Your assistance is needed in responding to a concern being expressed by various school districts in Florida.

Florida currently has a law, Section 234.051, Florida Statutes, which requires the local school districts to use school buses meeting all state and federal requirements for transporting children to school or school related activities. The same law also specifically exempts passenger cars from having to meet school bus specifications.

Based upon the above law, Florida does not permit local school boards to use conventional vans for transporting students. Only those units which have been converted to meet all federal and state school bus requirements and for which a letter of certification is on file from the manufacturer are permitted to be used by the school districts.

Lately, a number of school districts have inquired to the Department concerning the use of the new "mini-vans" for transporting students. Specifically, the Chrysler mini-vans, Ford Aerostar, General Motors Astro and Safari, Toyota Van and Volkswagon Vanagon which transport a maximum of eight people including the driver.

My specific request to you is how are these units defined under the federal definitions by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration? Are they defined as "passenger cars" or "multi- purpose vehicles"?

Along these same lines, the Florida Department of Education has taken the position recommending to school boards that when parents volunteer to transport children to activities which are condoned, sponsored, or under the authority of the school board, they should not permit the transportation of these students in conventional vans. This position is based upon the fact these units do not meet school bus specifications or standards; are not specifically exempt as with passenger cars; and, the risk of liability to the school board becomes highly magnified.

Any comments you may provide regarding this position is also appreciated.

Your assistance in addressing the above issues would be very helpful in my responding to the local school boards in Florida.

Sincerely,

Larry H. McEntire Administrator School Transportation

ID: nht87-1.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/16/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Peter Cameron-Nott

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Peter Cameron-Nott 90 Horace Street Startford, CT 06497

Dear Mr. Cameron-Nott:

This is in reply to your letter of December 7, 1986, with respect to kit cars.

Your first question concerns a 1965 Jaguar that has been rebodied but carries its original mechanical components, title, and identification number. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act does not require conformance with the Federal motor vehi cle safety standards applicable to passenger cars if the passenger car to be imported into the United States was manufactured before January 1, 1968. However, certain of these standards cover vehicle components, and if the relevant components have been m anufactured on or after January 1, 1968, these components would be subject to the applicable Federal safety standard. These components include brake hoses, lighting equipment, tires, retreaded tires, glazing materials (most importantly, the windshield mu st be marked AS-1), seat belt assemblies, and wheel covers (which may not incorporate winged projections). Although the 1965 Jaguar would have a new body, by retaining its original mechanical components, title, and identification number, it would be cons idered a 1965 model and not subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to passenger cars. But if any of the equipment listed above has been manufactured after January 1, 1968, those items must comply in order to be imported into thi s country.

You have asked how the situation would differ were the rebodied Jaguar a 1972 model, the other facts being identical. We would consider this car " a 1972 model, and required to conform to all Federal motor vehicle safety standards that applied on the dat e of its original manufacture. Conformity could be achieved either before or after its importation into this country.

Your second question concerns "a kit car consisting of both new and used components i.e. new body/chassis and used mechanicals from various sources including Ford/Triumph and M.G." You have reported EPA's position that the year of the engine determines what standards are to be met, and you have asked if these are also DOT's requirements. The age of the engine is not the determining factor with us. Generally, the agency considers a kit car consisting of a new body and new chassis to be a new motor vehicle, and required to meet all Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new passenger cars as of the date of its assembly, even if some of its mechanical components have been used previously . This means that such components must not prevent the assembled vehicle from meeting those standards.

If you have further questions we would be pleased to answer them.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ms. Erika Jones Chief Counsel 12/7/86 N.H.T.S.A. 400 7th St S.W. Washington D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

I recently spoke to Mr. John Donaldson at D.O.T and he recommended that I write to you concerning importation of rebodied and kit vehicles. There are some points upon which I would request further clarification.

I wish to import the following vehicles:

#1 1965 Jaguar that has been rebodied but still using original mechanical components. i.e. new body and original Jaguar mechanicals including suspension, steering, brakes, transmission etc.

The chassis carries the original 1965 Jaguar I.D. # and is titled accordingly i.e. 1965 Jaguar two seat convertible and 1965 I.D. #.

In addition what standards are applicable if the rebodied vehicle is for example a 1972 Jaguar and titled as such?

#2 A kit car consisting of both new and used components i.e. new body/chassis and used mechanicals from various sources including Ford/Triumph and M.G.

E.P.A. has informed me that in these cars the rebodied 65 jaguar is exempted because it was originally manufactured prior to 1968 but the 1972 Jaguar must be certified to 1972 standards. And for the kit car the year of the engine in the vehicle determine s what standards must be met. Are these also the requirements of D.O.T.?

Your clarification of these points would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely Yours,

Peter Cameron-Nott