ID: nht87-2.59

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/28/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Anonymous (confidential)

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 12/1/83 letter from Frank Berndt to H. Nakaya, Mazda, Inc.

TEXT: Dear

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation as to whether a new mini-van you will introduce into the United States would be classified as a "multipurpose passenger vehicle" for the purposes of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and the Bumper Standard (49 CFR Part 581). In a June 5, 1987, phone conversation between members of my staff and your staff, it has stated that this interpretation should not address the question of how this vehicle would be classified for purposes of the avera ge fuel economy standards. You stated in your letter your opinion that this new mini-van should be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle, because it is constructed on a truck chassis.

Your opinion was based on the fact that both passenger and cargo versions of this mini-van have already been sold in Japan. You stated that the cargo version of the mini-van has a chassis that is substantially reinforced from the chassis used in the pass enger version of this mini-van. The version of the vehicle you will offer for sale in the United States will be a passenger version of the vehicle, but will use the chassis offered on the Japanese cargo version of this vehicle. Apparently, you do not pla n to offer any cargo versions of this vehicle for sale in the United States. However, you believe that the chassis that will be offered on the United States version of this mini-van is a truck chassis, and this should not result in the United States vers ion this vehicle being classified as a multipurpose vehicle for the purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and the bumper standard.

At the outset, I would like to make clear that both the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403), with respect to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and Title I of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S. C. 1915(c)), with respect to the bumper standard, place the responsibility for classifying a particular vehicle in the first instance on its manufacturer. For this reason, NHTSA does not approve, endorse, or certify any vehicle classifications before the manufacturer itself has classified a particular vehicle. This agency may reexamine the manufacturer's classification in the course of any enforcement actions. We will, however, tentatively state how we believe we would classify a vehicle for the purpose s of these standards. It is important for the manufacturer to be aware that these tentative statements are based entirely on the information provided to the agency by the manufacturer, and the tentative conclusions may change after the agency has had an opportunity to examine the vehicle itself.

A December 1, 1983, letter to Mr. Nakaya discusses how we would consider and apply the various factors to determine whether a vehicle should be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle by virtue of being constructed on a truck chassis. A copy of th at letter is enclosed for your information. Our position has not changed since this 1983 letter.

To briefly summarize the letter, the fact that a common chassis is used in a family of vehicles, one of which is classified as a truck, is evidence that the common chassis is a truck chassis. However, further evidence is needed to demonstrate that the ch assis has truck attributes. This further evidence might consist of information showing the chassis designed to be more suitable for heavy duty commercial operation than a conventional passenger car chassis, which you stated is the case for the chassis on this new vehicle. The 1983 letter makes clear that NHTSA will examine the classification of your new vehicle as a multipurpose passenger vehicle more carefully than other such classifications, since no truck version of this vehicle will be offered for s ale in the United States. However, at that time and assuming that your statements about the reinforcement of the chassis are accurately it appears to us that this vehicle is constructed on a truck chassis. Accordingly, the vehicle could be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle for the purposes of the bumper and safety standards. The version of this letter that has been placed in our public docket, together with your letter to me, have all information identifying you and your company deleted therefrom. Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

(see 12/1/83 NHTSA letter to Mazda, Inc.)

12/22/86

Dear Ms. Jones:

This letter serves to request an interpretation of Part 571.3 Definitions; "Multipurpose Passenger Vehicle (MPV)" and the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Saving Act Pub.L. 92-513 USC 1901-1991.

Mitsubishi Motors Corporation (MMC) plans to introduce a Colt/Mirage Station Wagon in the 1988 model year. We request that NHTSA treat our letter as confidential since the disclosure of our future product plans could cause serious competitive harm. MMC b elieves this wagon should be classified as a MPV for the following reasons:

The Colt/Mirage Station Wagon is a small wagon which will be identical to the Mirage Van sold in the Japanese market in the following respects:

The Mirage Van is a commercial vehicle and has a truck chassis as follows:

(1) The chassis of the Mirage Van is reinforced from that of the Mirage Sedan for commerical use in the Japanese market.

The components reinforced include the following: - The rear suspension is changed from independent to rigid.

- The rear floow pan and longitudinal members are changed and strengthened for commercial load support.

(2) As the result of such reinforcement, the gross vehicle weight of the Mirage Van in the Japanese market increases 300kg as follows:

Mirage Van 1525kg

Mirage Sedan 1225kkg

(5) the Mirage Van has other commercial features as follows:

- The flat cargo floor extends from the folded rear seat back to the tailgate.

- The end of the cargo floor has no stepped up crossrail. This makes loading and unloading of cargo convenient.

- The roof is raised 40mm from the sedan for cargo capacity.

Since the chassis of Colt/Mirage Station Wagon is the same as that of the Mirage Van, we believe the Colt/Mirage Station Wagon has a truck chassis and can be considered a MPV.

Please inform us in a timely manner whether our interpreatation is correct.

If you have any question, please contact me or Hiroshi Kato at (313) 353-5444.

Sincerely,

ID: nht87-2.60

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: JULY 30, 1987

FROM: LEONARD CAIN -- DIRECTOR, SCHOOL BUILDING AND TRANSPORTATION - MISSISSIPPI DEPT. OF EDUCATION

TO: JOAN TILLMAN -- NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

ATTACHMT: FEBRUARY 23, 1988 LETTER FROM JONES TO CAIN

TEXT: In our telephone conversation yesterday, you made reference to not having any knowledge of Standard 17. Through the years this division has received numerous communiques from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regarding Standard 17 and i ts application for transporting students to and from school and related activities.

Enclosed is a copy of a Notice from the NHTSA making reference to Standard 17, Pupil Transportation Safety. You will note on page 2 of this notice that the last paragraph makes specific reference to color under the definition of school bus identificatio n and marking requirements.

Would you please provide an official interpretation of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for school buses regarding the following questions:

(1) Does a vehicle (type 1 bus) purchased by a local public school district for transporting students for only activity purposes have to conform to all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards? Does a bus purchased and used solely for activity purposes ha ve to be painted school bus yellow?

(2) Does a van (designed to carry 11 or more persons) purchased by a local public school district for transportating students for only activity purposes have to conform to all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards? Does a van purchased and used solely for activity purposes have to be painted school bus yellow?

Your help is sincerely appreciated.

ID: nht87-2.61

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/31/87

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: RICHARD J. MAHER

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 09/06/88 TO ROBERT DAUGHERTY FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 213; LETTER DATED 10/16/86 TO TERRY WOODMAN FROM ERIKA Z. JONES; LETTER DATED 02/05/88 TO ERIKA Z. JONES FROM ROBERT DAUGHERTY, OCC - 1588

TEXT: Dear Mr. Maher:

Thank you for your letter requesting an investigation into the crashworthiness of belts used on wheelchairs. You explained that your son uses a motorized wheelchair that came equipped with a belt. In a crash last summer, your son was unfortunately inju red when the wheelchair belt tore loose at its anchorage point on the wheelchair. You asked that we consider the possibility of requiring wheelchair belts to provide crash protection similar to safety belts installed in vehicles.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has no authority to issue any regulations applicable to wheelchair belts. These belts are not safety belts, because they are not designed or intended to restrain the wheelchair occupant during a motor v ehicle crash. Rather, the belts you were describing are only intended to position and hold the wheelchair occupant upright during normal use of the wheelchair. Because these belts are not designed or intended for use in motor vehicles, they are outside the scope of this agency's regulatory authority.

Such belts are, however, medical "devices" subject to the authority of the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA does specify certain standards that wheelchair belts must satisfy. You may obtain further information on the standards for wheelchair belts by writing to: The National Center for Devices and Radiological Health, 8757 Georgia Avenue, Room 1431, Silver Spring, MD 20910. You may wish to telephone Dr. Elmar Einberg, at (301) 427-7238, for further information on these belts.

I would like to call to your attention the fact that there are devices that are specifically designed to restrain wheelchair occupants in the event of a motor vehicle crash. These devices are called "tie-downs." A tie-down is attached to the vehicle its elf, while the wheelchair belt you described is attached only to the frame of the wheelchair itself. The stronger anchorage points used by a tie-down enable it to provide significantly greater occupant restraint during a crash. For further information on tie-downs, I recommend that you contact Dr. Lawrence W. Schneider, Transportation Research Institute, University of Michigan,

2 2901 Baxter Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48109." Dr. Schneider's telephone number is (313) 763-3582.

I was very sorry to learn of your son's injuries. I hope that this information will help reduce the chances of future injuries.

Sincerely,

ID: nht87-2.62

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/03/87

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: DOUGLAS H. BOSCO -- HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/19/88 TO DOUGLAS H BOSCO, FROM ERIKA Z JONES, REDBOOK A32 (2) STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 06/16/88, TO ERIKA Z. JONES, FROM DOUGLAS H. BOSCO; LETTER DATED 06/09/88 TO JERRY K YOST FROM L.F ROLLIN; LETTER DATED 03/28/8 8 TO C-MORE-LITE JERRYS SERVICE FROM DON O. HORNING RE TEST REPORT NO 92606; 1988 LETTER TO ERIKA JONES FROM JERRY'S SERVICE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Bosco:

This is in reply to your recent letter on behalf of your constituent, Jerry Yost. Mr. Yost would like to know of the permissibility under Federal regulations of a headlamp relay which would allow a headlamp's lower beam to remain in operation when the u pper beam is activated. You enclosed some diagrams from Mr. Yost and asked for confirmation of his assessment that they would demonstrate that "the candela criterion in the existing regulations for high-beam" would be met "when low and high-beam are com bined."

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, is the regulation governing the permissibility of relays allowing simultaneous operation of upper and lower beams on motor vehicle headlamps. The standar d specifies requirements for two generic types of headlamps, sealed beam (an indivisible unit encompassing the reflector, lens, and light source), and replaceable bulb (the replaceable in the event of burn out). Eight different types of sealed beam head lamps are permitted (denominated Types A through H), and three types of replaceable bulbs (He1, HB3, and HB4). However, in only one of the sealed beam systems is simultaneous operation of upper and lower beam specifically permitted, the Type F system (pa ragraph S4.5.12). Simultaneous beam operation is also permitted in replaceable bulb headlighting systems comprising four headlamps designed to conform to Type F photometry (S4.5.8, with Type F photometrics at Figure 15). Simultaneous operation of both beams is not a required feature of any of these systems but an option available to vehicle manufacturers. Thus, Mr. Yost's relay is permissible in any of these systems employing the simultaneous activation option.

However, simultaneous activation of both beams is explicitly prohibited in headlighting systems consisting of four replaceable bulb lamps designed to meet photometrics other than those of Type F (S4.5.8), and implicitly prohibited under the agency's inte rpretations of materials of the Society of Automotive Engineers relating to means of switching beams that are incorporated by reference into Standard No. 108. These materials refer to operation of separate beams with no reference to joint operation. As I discussed with your Administrative Assistant, Mitch Stogner, the agency's principal historic concern with simultaneous

2 activation of lower and upper headlamp beams is that the maximum candlepower limitations established by the Federal vehicle lighting standard could be exceeded. These limitations are set forth in SAE Standard J579c, the photometric requirements applic able to all headlighting systems except those designed to meet Type F photometry. These photometrics were intentionally adopted to allow simultaneous activation without exceeding the overall candlepower limit deemed desirable for motor vehicle safety. Based upon its research, the agency has concluded that frontal lighting on motor vehicles should not exceed 150,000 candela when the lamps are activated. In addition, the Type F. photometrics establish maximum values for two lower beam test points in o rder to reduce the possibility of excessive foreground light and glare resulting from simultaneous use. The diagrams that Mr. Yost provided describe the installation and operation of the relay, measurement of 7" circular headlamps (Type D under Standard No. 108) with a mechanical aimer, and how various types of headlighting systems look on the front of cars. While we appreciate having the benefit of this information, only that pertaining to the design of the relay is relevant to permissibility of use with systems designed to meet Type F photometrics.

As Standard No. 108 does not specify the design of relay switches, Mr. Yost should be encouraged to contact motor vehicle manufacturers who may be interested in using headlighting systems designed to meet Type F photometrics with the option of simultaneo us activation of both beams. The agency has no present plan to modify Standard No. 108 to allow simultaneous use with any system employing photometrics other than Type F and, as indicated earlier, considers this a prohibited practice with other systems.

I hope that this information is useful to you.

Sincerely,

ID: nht87-2.63

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/10/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable John P. Murtha

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

The Honorable John P. Murtha Member of Congress Post Office Box Johnstown, PA 15907

Dear Mr. Murtha:

Thank you for your letter to the Department of Transportation's Office of Congressional Affairs, which has been referred to me for a response. In an addendum enclosed with your letter, you note that one of your constituents, Mr. Gene Bird, would like inf ormation on the Federal regulations addressing "completing the finishing work on automobiles." Apparently, another manufacturer would send small sports cars to Mr. Bird's business. Your addendum states that these sports cars "will need the following type of work done: installation of the engine, components, radiators, interiors, and the cars will finally have to be tested." I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our statute and regulations to you.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) requires every new motor vehicle sold in the United States to be certified as complying with all applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Safet y Act also specifies that the manufacturer itself must certify that each of its vehicles complies with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture. Because of this statutory requirement, this agency does not "approve" any vehicle s or offer assurances that the vehicles comply with the safety standards.

Further, the Safety Act does not require that a manufacturer's certification be based on a specified number of tests or any tests at all. The Safety Act only requires that the certification be made with the exercise of "due care" on the part of the manuf acturer. It is up to the individual manufacturer in the first instance to determine what data, test results, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that its vehicles comply with the safety standards. We would certainly recommend that a new manufacturer test some of its vehicles for compliance with the applicable safety standards.

It is not entirely clear from your addendum whether Mr. Bird would be classified as an "alterer" or a "final stage manufacturer" under our regulations. His company would be considered an "alterer" of motor vehicles, if the second company referred to in y our addendum furnishes completed and certified sports cars to Mr. Bird's company, and Mr. Bird's company changes the engine and other components on those vehicles. If this is the contemplated action, Mr. Bird's company would be treated as an alterer unde r our regulations.

The certification requirements for alterers are set forth in 49 CFR S567.7 (copy enclosed). Generally speaking, that section requires a person who alters a vehicle before its first purchase to supplement the certification label affixed by the original ma nufacturer with its own certification label. The alterer's certification label must include all of the information set forth in Part 567, including a statement that the altered vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date t he vehicle was altered. In the case of sports cars, an alterer must certify that the altered car complies with all of the following:

49 CFR S571.101 Controls and Displays; 49 CFR S571.102 Transmission Shift Lever Sequence; 49 CFR S571.103 Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems; 49 CFR S571.104 Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems; 49 CFR S571.105 Hydraulic Brake Systems; 49 CFR S571.106 Brake Hoses; 49 CFR S571.107 Reflecting Surfaces: 49 CFR S571.108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment; 49 CFR S571.110 Tire Selection and Rims; 49 CFR S571.111 Rearview Mirrors; 49 CFR S571.112 Headlamp Concealment Devices; 49 CFR S571.113 Hood Latch System; 49 CFR S571.114 Theft Protection; 49 CFR S571.115 Vehicle Identification Number; 49 CFR S571.116 Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids; 49 CFR S571.118 Power-operated Window Systems; 49 CFR S571.124 Accelerator Control Systems; 49 CFR S571.201 Occupant Protection in Interior Impacts; 49 CFR S571.202 Head Restraints; 49 CFR S571.203 Impact Protection for the Driver from the Steering Column; 49 CFR S571.204 Steering Control Rearward Displacement; 49 CFR S571.205 Glazing Materials; 49 CFR S571.206 Door Locks and Door Retention Components; 49 CFR S571.207 Seating Systems; 49 CFR S571.208 Occupant Crash Protection; 49 CFR S571.209 Seat Belt Assemblies; 49 CFR S571.210 Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages; 49 CFR S571.211 Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hub Caps; 49 CFR S571.212 Windshield Mounting; 49 CFR S571.214 Side Door Strength; 49 CFR S571.216 Roof Crush Resistance; 49 CFR S571.219 Windshield Zone Intrusion; 49 CFR S571.301 Fuel System Integrity; and 49 CFR S571.302 Flammability of Interior Materials.

Alternatively, Mr. Bird's company may be treated as a "final stage manufacturer," as that term is defined at 49 CFR S568.4. A final stage manufacturer means a person who finishes the manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle. Thus, if the second company referred to in your addendum is planning to furnish Mr. Bird's company with sports cars that have no engine, radiator, and so forth, the vehicles provided to Mr. Bird's company would be considered "incomplete vehicles" and Mr. Bird's company woul d be considered a "final stage manufacturer."

If this is the case, Mr. Bird's certification responsibilities depend on the information he is provided by the manufacturer of the incomplete vehicle; i.e., the second company referred to in your addendum. Part 568 (copy enclosed) requires the manufactur er of the incomplete vehicle to furnish Mr. Bird's company with a document that states one of three things for the incomplete vehicle. These are:

1. The vehicle when completed will conform to some or all of the applicable safety standards if no alterations are made to any identified components of the incomplete vehicle.

If Mr. Bird receives such a document and does not make any of the specified alterations, his company could certify compliance with the standards listed in the previous manufacturer's document simply by stating that compliance has not been affected by the operations performed by Mr. Bird's company. See 49 CFR S567.5(c)(7). Mr. Bird's company would have to certify compliance with any applicable standards not listed in this document.

2. The vehicle when completed will conform to some or all of the applicable safety standards if specific conditions are followed by the final stage manufacturer.

If Mr. Bird receives this type of document, his situation will be very similar to that described above. That is, if his company follows the specific conditions, it could certify compliance with the standards listed in the previous manufacturer's document simply by stating that compliance has not been affected by the operations performed by Mr. Bird's company. See 49 CFR S567.5(c)(7). Again, Mr. Bird's company would have to certify compliance with any applicable standards not listed in this document.

3. Conformity with some or all of the standards is not substantially affected by the design of the incomplete vehicle, so the incomplete vehicle manufacturer makes no representation as to conformity with the standards.

If Mr. Bird receives this type of document, his company would be required to certify compliance with the standards identified in the document on its own. This type of document would put Mr. Bird's company in the same position as an alterer for the listed standards.

I have also enclosed a general information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles. This sheet highlights the relevant Federal statutes and the National highway Traffic Safety Administration regulations that may apply and explains how to get copies of our regulations. I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about our regulations, please contact this office.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures

JUNE 19 1987 The Honorable John P. Murtha Member, U.S. House of Representatives Post Office Box 180 Johnstown, Pennsylvania 15907

Dear Mr. Murtha:

Thank you for your letter concerning an inquiry from your constituent, Mr. Gene Bird.

I have transmitted your inquiry to the appropriate Departmental officials who are familiar with this matter and they will respond to you directly.

I appreciate your contacting me and hope you will not hesitate to call if I can be of any further assistance.

Sincerely, Edward J. Babbitt Director, Office of Congressional Affairs

Mr. David P. Sloane, Director Office of Congressional Affairs U. S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Sloane:

The attached communication from my constituent is submitted for your earnest consideration.

Please investigate the statements contained therein and forward to me information on which I may base a proper reply.

Your early action and advice will be appreciated.

With every good wish,

Sincerely, JOHN P. MURTHA Member of Congress JPM/jm Enclosure

P.S. Please send reply to:

The Honorable John P. Murtha Member of Congress Post Office Box 780 Johnstown, Pennsylvania 15907

ATTN: Jean McAleer

Phone no. (814) 535-2642, FTS 723-9241 or 9370

Inquiry made by phone personal visit TIME: DATE: 6-05-87 Name Gene Bird Classic Motor Works Address 100 Station Street Town Johnstown, PA Zip 15905 Telephone number 814 288-6911 Social Security number Veterans Claim Number COMMENTS: (Please explain only)

Mr. Bird would appreciate the federal stipulations governing completing the finishing work on automobiles.

He said another company would like to do business with him. They will send small sports cars to his business which will need the following type of work done: installation of the engine, components, radiators, interiors, and the cars will finally have to be tested.

ID: nht87-2.64

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/10/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Thomas Baloga

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Thomas Baloga Safety Engineering Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. P.O. Box 350 Montvale, NJ 07645

Dear Mr. Baloga:

Thank you for your letter of May 12, 1987, to Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning the requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. You asked the agency to confirm that the 36 millisecond time interval to be used in the calculation of the head injury criterion (HIC) applies both to the Part 572, Subpart B test dummy and to the Subpart E test dummy. This is to confirm that the 36 millisecond time interval should be used in the calculation of a HIC for both types of test dummies.

On October 17, 1986 (51 F2 37028), NHTSA published a final rule in the Federal Register amending Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. One of the amendments modified the manner in which a HIC is calculated in the crash testing required by t he standard. That amendment referred to @6.2 as the provision of the standard containing the HIC requirement. Instead, the notice should have amended @6.1.2, which sets out the HIC calculation for the Part 572, Subpart B test dummy, and @6.2.2, which set s out the HIC calculation to be used with the new Part 572. Subpart E test dummy.. The agency will publish an amendment to adopt the necessary changes to @6.1.2 and @6.2.2 to make clear that the change to the calculation of the HIC criterion affects thos e two provisions.

If you need further information, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Mr. Steve Oesch Legal Counsel Department of Transportation NHTSA 400 Seventh St., S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Subject: Docket 74-14, Notice 47 Concerning FMVSS 208 Published in the Federal Register October 17, 1986

Dear Mr. Oesch:

Confirming our telephone request of May 4, 1987, we would be most appreciative if NHTSA could acknowledge in writing that in the subject FR it was erroneously printed, on page 37033 paragraph @6.2, that for calculating HIC values, the 36 millisecond time interval applies only to the Part 572, Subpart E, Hybrid III test dummy.

A corrected Part 571.208 will, in the future, indicate that the 36 millisecond time interval for HIC calculation applies to using either a Hybrid III or a Part 572 Subpart B test dummy. Since a correction notice in the FR may be further delayed due to hi gher priorities, we are eager to obtain this confirmation as soon as practicable.

Thank you very much for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Thomas Baloga Safety Engineering (201) 573-2622

ID: nht87-2.65

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/11/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Richard Logan -- President, Logan Conversions, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 3, 1987, letter asking for information on installing a left side passenger door on new and used school buses. You stated that the door you wish to install would be added to the vehicle as an extra exit and you do not intend to seal or otherwise make inoperable any existing door. Installing an extra exit on a school bus is permitted by our regulations, provided that the work performed complies with our requirements for vehicle modifications. The applicable requirements for su ch modifications depend on the nature of the work performed and when it was done.

Before I begin to explain our requirements, let me clarify that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not have a process by which businesses such as yours apply to and are approved by the agency. Instead, under the National Tra ffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and NHTSA regulations, you are responsible for determining whether your vehicle modifications conform to Federal law and making the requisite certification in accordance with that determination. This "self-certification " process requires you to determine in the exercise of due care that you have met all applicable requirements.

If you install the door on a new school bus, you are considered an "alterer" of a previously certified motor vehicle. Under our requirements for alterers, set forth in 49 CFR Part 567.7 of our regulations (copy enclosed), you must certify that the vehic le, as altered, complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Among the standards applicable to the bus are our school bus safety standards, and these include Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release.

In the case of Standard No. 217, which sets emergency exit requirements, it is important whether the additional exit in question is intended to be used as an emergency exit. While we do not prohibit the installation of additional exits in school buses, this agency has long held the position that extra "emergency exits" in school buses should comply with the

2

requirements set forth in 217 for non-school bus emergency exits. If the door is not labeled or intended as an emergency exit, then Standard No. 217's requirements are not applicable.

Modifications of new or used vehicles by commercial businesses are also governed by @ 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed). This section requires Logan Conversions to ensure that the modifications it performs do not render inoperative the compliance of vehicles with Federel motor vehicle safety standards. For example, when installing the extra door, your business could not alter the seats in the school bus in a manner that would take the bus out of complian ce with Safety Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. Violations of @ 108(a)(2)(A) are punishable by civi penalties of up to $ 1,000 per violation.

I hope this information is helpful. In addition to copies of the above-mentioned documents, I have also enclosed information on how you can obtain copies of NHTSA regulations for your future reference. Please contact my office if you have further quest ions.

Sincerely,

Enclosures

ATTACH.

June 3, 1987

Erika Jones -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, CHIEF COUNSELS OFFICE

Dear Ms. Jones,

We are a major school bus company that is based in New York City and its suburbs, and operate approximately 300 vehicles.

As part of our contractual obligation to the City of New York we are required to have part of our fleet equipped with left side passenger doors, as well as the standard right side door.

We currently own and contemplate purchasing additional school buses that do not meet left side door at this time.

We are seeking the proper authorization to perform the left side door conversions in our shops, utilizing our mechanical staff. It is for this reason that I forward this information to your office for review and a response on what steps must be taken by our corporation to perform these conversions meeting all New York State and National Highway Administration requirements.

To begin with, as you are aware, we as a New York State bus contractor are govern by the rules and regulations of the Department of Transportation. In accordance with the observance of New York State D.O.T. requirements, I have brought our conversion re quest to the attention of Mr. Robert Bailey whom is the chief motor vehicle inspector for our region. It was Mr. Bailey that suggested that I forward this request to yourself, pertaining to the specific listed below.

(1) All necessary information and applications to perform the above conversions on our own vehicles as well as vehicles owned by others.

(2) All necessary information for conversions on new and used buses.

(3) All Federal requirements for the above conversions.

Enclosed is a letter from Carpenter Body Works which indicates their interest in authorizing us to do left door conversions.

Thanking you in advance for prompt attention to our request.

Very tryly yours,

Richard Logan -- President, LOGAN CONVERSIONS LTD.

cc: Robert Bailey Chief Motor Vehicle Inspector, NYC State of New York Department of Transportation

CARPENTER BODY WORKS, INC.

November 18, 1986

Logan Bus Co., Inc.

ATTN: RICHARD LOGAN

Dear Mr. Logan:

We are enclosing all of the necessary prints for the conversion of 1977 through present buses that require the left side entrance door. Parts and prices can be obtained through your local Carpenter Dealer. If we can be assured that this conversion w ill be done complete as shown on the enclosed prints, Carpenter will authorize this body design conversion.

Sincerely,

Keith Eckensberger Senior Product Engineer

ID: nht87-2.66

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/11/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Larry F. Wort; Illinois Department of Transportation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 3/23/76 letter from F. Berndt to Dept. of Transportation - New York (Std. 222); 8/11/87 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Melvin H. Smith

TEXT:

Larry F. Wort, Chief Bureau of Safety Programs Division of Traffic Safety Illinois Department of Transportation 2300 S. Dirksen Parkway Springfield, IL 62764

This responds to your May 26, 1967, letter to me asking about our requirements in Standard 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, for restraining barriers and seat back height. I appreciate this opportunity to explain our requirements. I n this discussion, I would also like to go over preemption issues that are raised by the state law you describe.

In your letter, you said that Illinois has recently enacted a law requiring 28-inch-high seat backs on new large school buses (i.e., buses with gross vehicle weight ratings greater than 10,000 pounds). You ask whether the 28-inch-high seat backs w ould negate the requirement for a restraining barrier in front of the front passenger seat. The answer is no.

Paragraph S5.2 of Standard 222 specifies: "Each vehicle shall be equipped with a restraining barrier forward of any designated seating position that does not have the rear surface of another school bus passenger seat within 24 inches of its seating refe rence point . . . ." The standard makes no exception for any type of school bus passenger seat. The reason for the broad application is clear, since restraining barriers are needed to compartmentalize the seating area.

Your second question was whether the height of the restraining barrier must be as high as the height of the extended seat back. The answer is no. The requirements for restraining barrier surface area are found in paragraph S5.2.2 of Standard 222. That section states: "in a front projected view of the bus, each point of the barrier's perimeter coincides with or lies outside of the perimeter of the seat back of the seat for which it is required." The seat back of the seat for which a restraining barrier is required has dimensions specified in S5.1.2 of the standard. A restraining barrier must therefore only coincide with or lie outside of the seat back surface required by S5.1.2. If a seat back su rface exceeds the size required in Standard 222, the size of the restraining barrier need not coincide.

The preemption issue you raise relates to the Illinois law mandating the 28-inch-high seat backs and FMVSS 222's seat back height requirement. I have enclosed a copy of our recent letter to Mr. Melvin Smith of your Department which explains that the Illi nois law for 28-inch high seat backs is preempted by Federal law. However, as discussed in our letter, the State may require the high seat backs for public school buses.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

(See 8/11/87 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Melvin H. Smith; also see 3/23/76 letter from F. Berndt to Dept. of Transportation - New York)

May 26, 1987

Dear Ms. Jones:

When a school bus with gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) more than 10,000 pounds is equipped with passenger seats having 28 inch seat backs (i.e., all backs about 4 inches higher than standard seat backs), will federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 222 (49 CFR 571.222) require a restraining barrier for each front seat?

If a restraining barrier is required for each front seat having a 28 inch high seat back, in a school bus with a gross vehicle weight rating more than 10,000 pounds, must the height or that barrier match the seat back height:

Illinois law requires every Type I school bus (GVWR more than 10,000 pounds) manufactured after June 30, 1987 and sold, purchased, or used as a school bus within Illinois to be "equipped with passenger seat backs having a seat back height of 28 inches". A bus body manufacturer has pointed out that to accommodate the higher backs either the bus body must be longer or "knee clearance" must be reduced throughout the bus. Omitting the two front barriers would provide additional space to accommodate the high seat backs without lengthening buses or shortening knee clearances.

We will be most grateful for an immediate answer to our questions.

Sincerely,

Larry F. Wort, Chief Bureau of Safety Programs Division of Traffic Safety

ID: nht87-2.67

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/11/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Melvin H. Smith -- Illinois Dept. of Transportation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 3/23/76 letter from F. Berndt to Dept of Transportation - New York (Std - 222); 8/11/87 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Larry F. Wort

TEXT:

Mr. Melvin H. Smith Governor's Representative for Highway Safety Illinois Department of Transportation 2300 S. Dirksen parkway Springfield, IL 62764

This responds to Your June 9, 1987, letter to me asking whether Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act preempts an Illinois statute requiring 28-inch high seat backs on all new large school buses. The answer to your question is yes.

I must disagree with your view that FMVSS No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, does not regulate seat back height. A seat back height requirement, established in paragraph S5.1.2, is an integral part of the standard's mandated comp artmentalization system of passenger crash protection. This agency has consistently said that any State requirement relating to seat back height that is not identical to S5.1.2 is preempted under Section 103(d) of the Safety Act.

I have enclosed a copy of a March 23, 1976 letter to Mr. Martin Chauvin relating to the preemptive effect of Federal law over a New York State law for 28-inch high seat backs. Please note the discussion in the Chauvin letter relating to State requirement s for additional safety features in public school buses. Under Section l03(d), a State may require a seat back height higher than 20 inches for its public school buses, provided that the vehicles continue to comply with all applicable federal safety stan dards.

I will send a copy of this letter to Mr. Larry Wort of your Department, whose earlier letter to us asking about our requirements for seat back height and restraining barriers raised also the same preemption issues. Please feel free to contact my office i f you have further questions.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure

(see 3/23/76 letter from F. Berndt to Dept. of Transportation - New York; see also 8/11/87 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Larry F. Wort)

June 16, 1987

Ms. Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 480 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

My letter of June 9, 1987. about preemption of the Illinois statute requiring 28 inch high seat backs in school buses contains an inadvertent error. On the first page, In the last full paragraph. the reference in parentheses should have read (49 CFR 571. 222S5.1.2.).

Please correct the reference and forgive our error.

Sincerely, Melvin H. Smith Governor's Representative for Highway Safety

June 9, 1987

Ms. Erika Z. Jones. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 480 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

In this letter I ask you to agree that the Illinois statute requiring 28 inch high seat backs on passenger seats in Type I school buses Is not preempted by a Federal statute; i.e., 15 USC 1392(d). A copy of the Illinois statute (Section 12-807.1 of the I llinois Vehicle Code (IVC) - Ill. Rev. Stat., 1986 Supp., ch. 95 1/2. par. 12-807.1) is enclosed. A Type I school bus has a GVWR more than 10,000 pounds (IVC 12-800, enclosed) .

We believe IVC 12-807. 1 is not preempted because it governs an aspect of performance not governed by a federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS - 49 CFR 571).

In Illinois. every school bus must meet the construction standards promulgated by this Department. (See IVC 1-182, 12-100. and 12-812, enclosed. By administrative agreement, the State Board of Education promulgates rules. regulations, and/or standards fo r OPERATION of school buses.) This Department's construction standards, among other things, require that each school bus conform to applicable provisions of FMVSS. The "high back" seats must conform to FMVSS 222. Each manufacturer of Type I school buses agrees and so certifies on the required permanently affixed Federal and State certification labels.

FMVSS 222 does not specify the height of a seat back. Instead, it specifies that each school bus passenger seat shall be equipped with a seat back that presents a prescribed front surface area located between two horizontal planes, one of which passes th rough the seating reference point while the other is 20 inches above the seating reference point (49 CfR 572.222S5. 1.2) . Each 28 inch high seat back required by IVC 12-807. 1 presents the required area and. according to Manufacturer's certifications, o therwise conforms to each applicable FMVSS requirement.

FMVSS 222 does not specify or limit the amount of the seat back's front surface area which may be located above the higher of the

Ms. E. Z. Jones June 9, 1987 Page Two

two horizontal planes. FMVSS 222 does not specify or limit the maximum distance the top of the seat back may be located above the empty seat cushion, the seating reference point. or any other point, plane, or object. In short, FMVSS 222 does not limit ei ther the maximum area or the maximum height of the seat back installed on a school bus passenger seat.

Please advise that the Illinois statute requiring 28 inch seat backs on passenger seats in Type I school buses (Ill. Rev. Stat.. 1986 Supp., ch. 95 1/2, par. 12-807.1) is not preempted. Because of the effective date of this statute, a prompt reply will b e deeply appreciated.

Sincerely, Melvin H. Smith Governor's Representative for Highway Safety Enclosures

1986 SUPPLEMENT TO REVISED STATUTES 1985 STATE BAR ASSOCIATION EDITION

Laws of the 84th General Assembly from Acts 84--1109 through 84-l431 Convened January 8, 1986 Adjourned July 2, 1986

with INDEX

ID: nht87-2.68

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/11/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Troy C. Martin

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Troy C. Martin Specification/Inspections Chief Texas State Purchasing and General Services Commission P.O. BOX 13047 Capitol Building Austin, TX 78711-3047

Dear Mr. Martin:

This is in response to your letter of February 25, 1987, concerning the regulations applicable to buses used by State Schools to transport children to non-school related activities. You have asked us to address this question for each type of State School , some of which are not "schools" at all, and for public and private schools generally.

In beginning my answer, I want to stress the distinction between the State and Federal regulation of school buses. The question of what bus to use for a particular trip is a question of State regulation. Although there are federal guidelines for school b us use, these are not binding on the States and Hill not be discussed in this letter. The question of what bus nay be sold for transporting children is a matter of Federal regulation. It is this question that we can answer.

A "school bus" is defined by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act in terms of its anticipated use. A bus is thus a "school bus" if the Secretary of Transportation determines it is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporti ng primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools.

A person who sells a new bus that Hill be "significantly used" for the purposes listed in the school bus definition must ensure that the bus meets- the Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses. Selling a nonconforming bus for sch ool bus use will subject the seller to a civil penalty of up to 000 for each vehicle and up to $800,000 for a related series of violations. The question of the bus's use is thus of considerable consequence both to the seller and to the buyer.

As you describe the State Schools in Texas, each type of School provides 24-hour residential care for children but offers a differing degree of educational service. One type is certified as a school district and provides instruction on campus, a second t ype is certified as a school district but offers no instruction, and a third is neither certified nor equipped for instruction. In purchasing a new bus for any of the three types of State School, you would need to ask the same question: Is the bus going to be "significantly used" to transport students to and from school or school-related events? If it will be used in this fashion, it will have to be certified as conforming to the school bus safety standards.

I can visualize circumstances under which a bus purchased for any of the three types of State School would have to be certified. The first type is a bona-fide school, so that any use of a bus to transport children to or from the School would be a trip "t o or from" school within the school bus definition of the Vehicle Safety Act. We expect that any new bus sold for use in this type of School would be certified as a school bus.

The second type of State School, though certified as a school district, offers no instruction. We would not consider either this type or the third type to be a "school," which we define as an institution for the instruction of children at the preprimary, primary, or secondary level. A new bus purchased for the use of one of these types of State School, and used for no other school transportation' would not have to be certified as a school bus. However, if the bus were to be purchased for the purpose of transporting children from the State School to local public or parochial schools on a regular basis, we would consider it to be "significantly used" for that purpose, even though it might also be used for other transportation unrelated to school.

A new bus sold for the use of a bona fide school, whether public or private, will almost invariably be required to be certified. Although a bus might conceivably be purchased by a school for the sole use of school employees, such a restriction would be r are. We would expect that virtually all buses purchased by a school would be required to be certified to the school bus standards.

Since the certified school bus has been shown to be the safest vehicle for children, we strongly endorse the use of a certified bus to transport children for any purpose, whether or not school-related. However, our regulatory authority extends only to th e manufacture and sale of new buses, not to their use for a particular trip. For those trips for which a school considers using a noncertified bus, we suggest that you review the Texas regulations on the use of school buses.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have further questions.

Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

February 25, 1987 Ms. Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel Room 5219 National Highway traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street NW Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

He have in the State or Texas certain Institutions called State Schools which may or may not educate students on their campuses (but these Institutions have, responsibility for 24-hr care of the children living there). There arises questions concerning whether or not the vehicles used to transport ten or more or these children to non-school related activities must be certified as school buses. I understand that the transporting or school children to and from school and to and from school related events such as activity trips require vehicles certified as school buses if the vehicle is equipped with ten or more passenger seats. What is unclear to me is what is considered school-related. I would appreciate your answering the following questions so that we can advise these institutions about transporting children:

1. Is an Institution such as a State School required to use a vehicle which is certified as a school bus to carry ten or more passengers to events not related to the public school activities (such as shopping trips downtown to purchase clothing, etc., tr ips to the local parks and playgrounds for entertaining the children, out-of-town trips such as a trip to the State Capital, etc.), if

a) the Institution is certified by the State or Texas as a school district, they teach children on their campus, and in all ways are considered as a school.

b) the Institution is certified by the State of Texas as a school district, however, they do not teach students on campus (their students go to the local public schools).

c) the Institution is not certified by the State or Texas as a school district, they do not teach students on campus, and the children living there attend the local public school, however, the Institution is called a State School.

2. Is a bona fide school, either public or private, required to use certified school buses to transport students to and from activities not related to school activities? For example, if the city government (or Institutional leaders) decided it would be a good idea to take all (or some) of the school children in one city (or an Institution) to a zoo in a nearby city; and this event was not coordinated with school officials; and the school officials were not involved in the project? or, another example, t he Superintendent of a private school decides to transport all of their students to a church activity in a nearby city.

I suppose, that the answers to the above questions and others that crop up from time to time about transporting children, really lies in the definitions of two terms: schools and school related. I would appreciate it, if in your reply you would give the federal definition of these two terms, and expand on them by giving some examples of what is and what is not a school, school related, etc. It would be very helpful to us.

Sincerely yours, Troy C. Martin Specification/Inspections Chief cc: Mr. Tommy Crowe