ID: nht87-2.78

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/26/87

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: TAK FUJITANI -- PROGRAM MANAGER, INSPECTION SERVICES OFFICE OF FLEET ADMINISTRATION CALIFORNIA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/24/89 EST; FROM JEFFREY R. MILLER -- NHTSA TO MICHAEL E. KASTNER -- NATIONAL TRUCK EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATION; REDBOOK A34; STANDARD 204; LETTER DATED 08/01/89 FROM MICHAEL E. KASTNER -- NATIONAL TRUCK EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATI ON; TO SAMUEL K. SKINNER -- DOT; OCC 3809; LETTER DATED 06/29/89 FROM SAMUEL K. SKINNER -- DOT TO ERNEST F. HOLLINGS -- SENATE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Fujitani:

This letter responds to your inquiries addressed to Joan Tilghman of my staff. Your letters concern buses purchased by the State of California, and manufactured by Champion Home Builders, Commercial Vehicle Division (Champion). You inform us that Champio n is a final stage manufacturer of vehicles built on a Ford chassis. You have rejected delivery of these vehicles because you assert that they do not comply with either California or Federal motor Vehicle regulations. This response addresses only those issues arising from Federal requirements.

As I understand your letters, you pose two principle questions. First, you ask whether classifying an incomplete vehicles as a "chassis" rather than as a "chassis cab" means that a final stage manufacturer can not alter the original chassis manufacturer 's gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). You assert that Champion's altering of the GVWR on a vehicle classified as a "chassis" is a noncompliance under 49 CFR sections 567.5 and 568.4 which you may use as grounds for rejecting delivery of Champion's vehi cles.

Your second question involves data set out in your letter of April 14, suggesting that Champion's certified GVWR for these vehicles is less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, the rated cargo load, and 150 lbs. times the vehicles' designated sea ting capacity. You state that this circumstance is a second noncompliance with Federal regulations upon which you have rejected delivery of Champion's buses.

The Cutaway Chassis/Chassis Cab Question.

In both your letters, you refer to provisions of 49 CFR 567.5 and 568.4, and to a 1977 Federal Register document (42 FR 37814, 37816, July 25, 1977). You state your interpretation of these 49 CFR provisions as "mean(ing) that final stage manufacturers ( who build on RV cutaways) are not authorized to alter the (GVWR) imposed by incomplete vehicle manufacturers since final stage manufacturers do not have any basis for

2

certifying a greater load carrying capaci(ty) without altering axle components to handle the extra load." As I understand it, when you speak of an RV cutaway you mean a vehicle chassis with an incomplete occupant compartment, intended for completion as a recreational vehicle. For any incomplete vehicle (including a cutaway or chassis cab), Part 568 requires the incomplete vehicle manufacturer to provide a document that describes how to complete the vehicle without impairing the vehicle's compliance sta tus. This document is not a certification.

If the incomplete vehicle is other than a chassis cab, the final stage manufacturer who builds on the incomplete vehicle must certify its compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). On the other hand, the certification process is different if an incomplete vehicle meets the agency's definition of "chassis cab." The Federal Register document to which you refer amended 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568 to conform with a court decision holding that NHTSA could not require a final stage manufacturer to make the "sole certification" of compliance for a vehicle built on a chassis cab. As a consequence of this decision, NHTSA established a dual certification scheme for such vehicles in which the chassis cab manufacturer makes one c ertification statement in each of three categories, and the final stage manufacturer makes corresponding statements depending on how the final stage manufacturer affects any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS).

Under this dual certification scheme, the original chassis cab manufacturer may provide instructions telling a final stage manufacturer how to complete a vehicle so that it conforms with applicable FMVSS. The final stage manufacturer has the choice of e ither conforming his work to the chassis cab manufacturer's instructions and shifting the burden under Part 567 of certifying compliance to the chassis can manufacturer; or deviating from those instructions, and assuming the certification burden for hims elf. Further, the final stage manufacturer must certify compliance respecting any FMVSS for which the chassis cab manufacturer makes no representation.

While you are correct that in the 1977 Federal Register document the agency decided to exclude RV cutaways from the definition of "chassis cab," the only effect of this exclusion is that dual certification requirements do not apply to vehicles completed on an RV cutaway.

Therefore, the answer to your first question is that a final stage manufacturer may change the GVWR for any incomplete vehicle, irrespective of whether he builds the completed vehicle on an RV cutaway or a chassis cab. However, if the final stage manufa cturer changes the GVWR for the vehicles, it must certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSS at this new GVWR. Compliance with Standards No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, and No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other Than Pass enger Cars might well be affected by an increase in the GVWR. The final stage manufacturer is required to exercise "due care" when certifying that its vehicle complies with all safety standards at this increased GVWR. Our Office of Vehicle Safety Compl iance has asked the

3

[Illegible Word] stage manufacturer of these vehicles to provide the data and other evidence that were the basis for Champion's certification of compliance at this higher GVWR.

Champion's Certified GVWR Calculation.

Part 567 of NHTSA regulations sets out requirements for affixing a certification label or tag to a motor vehicles. Section 567.4(g)(3) of that Part states that the certified GVWR:

". . . shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity. However, for school buses the minimum occupant weight allowance shall be 120."

In your April letter, you supply weightmaster readings for the two Champion motor vehicles that are the subject of your inquiry. While Champion certifies the GVWR for both these vehicles at 12,000 pounds, you indicated that according to your $ 567.4(g)( 3) calculation, the same are 12,147 pounds and 12,580 pounds. This agency considers vehicle overloading a serious safety problem for the affected vehicle and for the motoring public, and NHTSA may take appropriate remedial action against any manufacturer whose vehicle, laden with its intended cargo load, exceeds the manufacturer's GVWR. NHTSA's Office of Vehicles Safety Compliance is investigating this matter further.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

February 17, 1987

Dear Ms. Tilghman:

This letter is in reference to our telephone conversation on February 6, 1981, concerning the interpretation of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) statutes, regulations and standards. Particularly in 49 CFR 567.5, paragraph (c), ( iii), labeling and certification requirements for final stage manufacturers who complete certain incomplete vehicles. and 49 CFR 568.4 which requires the incomplete vehicle manufacturer to furnish with the incomplete vehicle a document that contains:

(1) Name and mailing address of the incomplete vehicle manufacturer,

(2) Month and year during which the incomplete vehicle manufacturer performed his last manufacturing operation on the incomplete vehicle.

(3) Identification of the incomplete vehicle to which the document applies.

(4) Gross vehicle weight rating of the completed vehicle for which the incomplete vehicle is intended.

(5) Gross axle weight rating for each axle of the completed vehicle.

(6) Listing of the vehicle types as defined in 49 CFR 571.3 of this chapter (e.g., truck, MPV, bus, trailer) into which the incomplete vehicle may appropriately be manufactured.

(7) Listing by number of each standard, in effect at the time of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle, that applies to any of the vehicle types listed in this paragraph (a)(6) of this section, followed in eaxch case by one of the following three types o f statement, as applicable:

(i) A statement that the vehicle when completed will conform to the standard if no alterations are made in identified components of the incomplete vehicle.

(ii) A statement of specific conditions of final manufacture under which the manufacturer specifies that the completed vehcile will conform to the standard.

(iii) A statement that conformity with the standard is not substantially affected by the design of the incomplete vehicle, and that the incomplete vehicle manufacturer makes no representation as to conformity with the standard.

In referencing 49 CFR 567.5, paragraph (c)(iii), we interpret the regulation to mean that the RV Cutaway chassis rated at 11,000 lbs. GVWR by the incomplete vehicle, manufacturer, is not classfied as a chassis-cab, therefore, no allowance is made to perm it alterations as they do for chassis-cabs.

In the Federal Register, 42 FR 47816. July 25, 1977, NHTSA denied the Recreation Vehicle Industry Association's (RVIA) request to change the definition of chassis-cab to include certain incomplete vehicles that are completed as motor homes and cutaway ch assis, etc. RVIA requested this rule change possibly because chassis-cabs may be altered and new GAWR and GVWR ratings may be certified by the final stage manufacturer.

The provisions in part 56B - vehicles manufactured in two or more stages - prescribes methods by which manufacturers of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages ensure conformity of those vehicles with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and ot her regulations issued under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

We interpret the regulations, 567.5(c)(iii). and 568.4(4) (5). to mean that final stage manufacturers are not authorized to alter the gross vehicle weight ratings imposed by incomplete vehicle manufacturers since final stage manufacturers do not have any basis for certifying a greater load carrying capacities without altering axle components to handle the extra load.

The types of vehicles in question are;

Incomplete vehicle, Ford RV Cutaway chassis, 176" wheel base, rated at 11,000 lbs. GVWR.

The completed vehicles may be:

- 16 passenger bus with two (2) wheelchair stations and chair lift. - 22 passenger bus with a drive line Telma electric retarder. - 24 passenger bus.

The new gross vehicle weight ratings may be:

- 11,550 lbs. GVWR

- 11,900 lbs. GVWR

The buses being questioned are manufactured by Champion Home Builders, Commercial Vehicle Division; however, there are other manufacturers following similar guidelines.

We are holding up three purchases which we feel may be overloaded when maximum passengers are being carried.

Please advise us of you legal opinion on this matter at your earliest convenience. This issue is safety related and I believe that manufacturers are not in compliance with the aforementioned regulations and instructions provided by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer.

Sincerely,

Tak Fujitani Program Manager Inspection Services

cc: George Williams

California Highway patrol Motor Carrier Section Sacramento, California 95814 (916) 445-1526

April 14, 1987

Dear Ms. Tilgman:

This is supplemental letter following my letter of request for interpretation of 49 CFR 567.5(c)(iii) and 49 CFR 568.4 dated February 17, 1987, and telephone discussions held during the past week.

As I have mentioned in my letter of February 17, 1987, be interpret the regulations 567.5(c)(iii), and 568.4(4)(5), to mean that final stage manufacturers are not authorized to alter gross axle weight ratings and gross vehicle height ratings imposed by i ncomplete vehicle manufacturers, particularly, on GVWR cutaway chassis which are rated at 11,000 lbs. GVWR

The factor affecting the 11,000 lbs. limitation is based on the least rated component, which is the rating of 7,400 lbs. imposed on the rear axle, Adding additional springs on the rear axle will not increase the load carrying ability of the completed veh icle. We have confirmed this through Ford Light Truck Applications and Dana Axle Applications Engineers; both have stated that the application of the completed vehicle remain; at 11,000 lbs. GVWR in RV cutaway chassis.

Champion Home Builders Company rates the completed vehicle at 12,000 lbs. GM, which is not consistent with the incomplete vehicle manufacturers instructions, and it is misleading to owner/operators to have two load ratings.

Three buses manufactured or Champion Home Builders Company and ordered for the State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation at Angle Island State Park were inspected on April 1 and again on April 7 for compliance with the State specifications at TW Bus Sales in West Sacramento.

Two of these buses are 25 passenger perimeter seating tour buses, and the other is a 21 passenger forward seating bus with rear storage compartment 33 inches deep. All three buses are equipped with a Telma electric brake retarder system, CD 30, or equal. One 25 passenger bus and one 21 passenger bus were weighed to calculate the loaded weight of the buses. Following are the weighmaster readings with load calculations: 21 passenger bus 25 passenger bus forward facing seats perimeter seating rear luggage compartment seats front axle, unladen weight 3,520 lbs. 3,660 lbs. rear axle, unladen weight 5,180 lbs. 4,920 lbs. total 8,700 lbs, 8,580 lbs. 21 passengers and 25 pass engers and driver at 150 lbs. 3,300 lbs. driver at 150 lbs. 3,900 lbs. luggage-day packs or small picnic baskets 7 lbs. atx 21 people 147 lbs. 4 bicycles & rack 100 lbs total 12,147 lbs 12,500 lbs.

Certification labels on the buses are:

* Ford Incomplete Vehicle label * Champion Home Builders Co. label 11,000 lbs. GVWR Date of Mfg 11-86 type bus 12,000 lbs. GVWR WB Type Body Trans Axle Sp Inc Veh Mftg by Ford 176" E303 AK G 52 OL Dste of Mfg 9-85

* Incomplete Vehicle Manual

GVWR 11,000 lbs. F GAWR R GAWR F GAWR R GAWR 4,200 lbs 7,400 lbs. 4,200 lbs. 8,200 lbs. LT215/85R16D LT215/85R16D LT215/85R16D LT215/75R16D 16X6K 16K6K 16X6K 16X6K dual 58p Champion Ser No. 5573241F1984

May be completed as: Multi Pur Pass Veh Truck

The Office of Fleet Administration has rejected the three buses delivered to the State by Champion Home Builders Company on grounds of noncompliance with State and Federal Regulations. * California Vehicle code, Division 12, Equipment of Vehicles Section 24002: Vehicle not Equipped or Unsafe

Section 24011: Federal Safety Standards

* Code of Federal Regulation, Title 69, Transportation 49 CFR 567.5(c) (s)(iii), Certification Label

49 CFR 578.4(4) 95). Requirements for Incomplete Vehicle Manufactur4r's

* Gross Vehicle Weight Rate in. Final stage manufacturers of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages are required to affix a label to each vehicle which contains, among other statements, Gross Vehicle height Rating or GVWR" followed by the appropriat e value in pounds, which shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds time the vehicle's designated seating capacity.

The gross vehicle weight rating posted on the certification label is less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity, the incomplete Vehicle Manufacturers rating of 11,000 pounds should be applied, however, it is also out of compliance with Champion's GVWR of 12,000 pounds.

We believe that the final stage manufacturer is not in compliance with the aforementioned regulations and instructions provided by the incomplete Vehicle manufacturer.

Please advise us or your legal opinion and interpretation of the regulations we have discussed

Sincerely,

Tak Fujitani Program Manager Inspection Services

Attachments

cc: George William

California Highway Patrol Motor Carrier Section

Tom McCauley Office of procurement

ID: nht87-2.79

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/27/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Major Harry A. Crytzer

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Major Harry A. Crytzer Bureau of Patrol Pennsylvania State Police l800 Elmerton Avenue Harrisburg, PA 17110

Dear Mr. Crytzer: .

This responds to your letter to our office and a telephone call between Trooper Monko of your department and Deirdre Hom of my staff, concerning how the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and our regulations affect a certain modificatio n of a school bus. I apologize for the delay in our response.

You explained in your letter and enclosures that the vehicle in question is a school bus with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) less than 10,000 pounds. The vehicle is being leased by the Governor Mifflin school district from a local dealer, Wo lfington Body Company, who bought the vehicle from the school bus manufacturer, Collins Industries. Your letter said that Collins delivered the vehicle to Wolfingiton with an extra side door "in place." The side door has provided for purposes of installi ng a wheelchair lift. You stated that Wolfington could have installed a wheelchair lift, if it had wished to do so; however, in the case at hand, Wolfington sealed the door and installed rear seats provided by Collins in the bus.

You first ask whether the school bus dealer (Wolfington) is prohibited by Federal law from sealing the side door and installing the rear seats. The answer is no. However, Federal law does impose limitations on the modifications that may be made. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) states:

No manufacturer, distributed, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an app licable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . .

Section lO8(a)(2l(A) prohibits Wolfington from either removing, disconnecting or degrading the performance of safety equipment or designs installed in compliance with applicable Federal safety standards. Thus, the school bus dealer cannot seal the door i f the door had been installed on the vehicle to meet the requirements for emergency exits found in Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. In the case you describe, the school bus Has provided with a rear emergency door which presumably satis fies Standard No. 217's requirements for emergency exits. If the school bus is able to meet the requirements of the standard notwithstanding the sealed side door, then there is no "rendering inoperative" of the vehicle's compliance with the school bus em ergency exit requirements.

Nevertheless, Wolfington must ensure that no other safety design or item of equipment installed pursuant to applicable Federal safety standards was rendered inoperative by its modifications. For instance, the performance of the fuel system must be mainta ined to the level required by Standard No. 301, Fuel System integrity. Similarly, Wolfington must ensure that the seats previously certified to Standard No. 222, School Bus Seating and Crash Protection, maintained their levels of performance.

Trooper Monko requested information on the Federal requirements applying to Collins and Wolfington, if Collins had delivered the school bus with the door sealed to Wolfington, the purchaser, and Wolfington had installed the lift and removed the rearmost seats. Wolfington is subject to the "render inoperative" provisions of S108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act in this situation, just as it is in the situation discussed earlier. Thus, Wolfington must ensure that its modifications do not negatively affect the c ompliance of safety equipment and designs with Federal safety standards. Notably, the fuel system and seats on the school bus must continue to meet the applicable safety standards.

We note that a different set of our regulations would apply if wolfington had obtained a new school bus from Collins to resell it to a school district. These regulations apply to the alteration of new vehicles, and impose certification responsibilities o n dealers modifying new vehicles. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you are interested in those regulations.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

September 29, 1986

Deidre Hom, Esquire Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Hom:

It has been requested of cur office by Trooper Barry J. Jozwiak, Troop "L", Reading, to provide clarification for the Pennsylvania State Police school bus inspection on the subject of rendering inoperable an additional service door on a school bus. The v ehicle when manufactured offers a dual option to the vehicle owner for use as either a special education or normal school bus. The selected use of the school bus can be converted to the owner's transportation needs at anytime by adding or deleting certai n school bus body items.

Would any Federal Statute or Regulation prohibit the dealer or owner from rendering this extra service door inoperable?

This supplements the conversation on August 8, 1986, between you and Trooper Thomas J. Monko of my staff. As requested, the attachments are forwarded for your information.

Should you have additional questions or require further clarification, phone contact, Trooper Thomas J. Monko at (717) 783-5517.

Sincerely, Harry A Crytzer Major Bureau of Patrol

SUBJECT: Service door on school bus To: C. O. Troop "L", Reading, Pa. 4310 FROM: Tpr. Barry J. JOZWIAK, Troop "L", Reading 4310

This officer inspected a 1985 Ford School Bus, VIN#1FDJE34H5FHCl29969, Pa. Reg. SB17235, COLLINS Body; 21 Passenger (including driver) with mileage 15,742, While inspecting this vehicle it was determined that an additional service door had been installed on the right side of the vehicle at the rear. This door is usually used with buses that have lift gates in them for transporting students in wheel chairs, however, this bus does not have the lift gate. It does have seats throughout the bus. The door itself is not operable. This officer feels the doo r should be operable. GVW is 9300.

This bus is currently in use by Governor Mifflin School District, Shillington, Berks Co. Pa. The bus is on the buy-back program with WOLFINGTON Body Co., Eagle, Pa. A check with Mr. Ralph BROWN OF WOLFINGTON advised they when they order these type of veh icles they order them with the extra side door in order for the buses to be used for dual purposes. One for lift gate wheel chair use and the other for normal transportation with the door secured shut. BROWN advised there are approx 3 other buses being u sed for 1986 with the door secured shut. All others have lift gates in them.

The door is located on the right rear corner of the bus. The side rub rail is located on the right side and travels up to the rear door and stops. Another rub rail is then installed approx. 2/3 or the door and stops just past the door opening where it is secured through the pillar post with 2 5/16 inch carriage bolts. The door handle is on the outside of the door and is locked with a key. The inside or the door has a latch assembly that when the handle is turned to lock, The latch assy. travels up to th e roof or the bus and down to the floor of the bus. In this bus the latch assy. is in the open position. The key was inserted into the lock to unlock the latch, but the handle does not turn. There is a chair rail located on the inside the bus that the se ats are mounted onto on the right side of the seat. At the rear door the seats are bolted to the floor with 4 lag seats with 4 bolts in each leg. They are not attached to the chair angle rail. The chair angle rail is not attached to the door, however it is secured before the door and also with one of the carriage bolts that go through the pillar posts from the outside.

Mr. Ron PETERS, COLLINS INDUSTRIES, Hutchinson, Kansas, was contacted 1-800-835-5007 and he advised that they have made these types of vehicles for many years and that they are for dual purpose, He feels the bus is stronger with the door rather than the conventional side due to the additional structure installed for the door.

These buses are built to ordering specs and can be made with or without the side door. The bus in question is an original equipment installation. When the bus is delivered to the distributor the door is in place without the lift assy, and the rear seats are not belted to the floor. It is the dealers option to use the vehicle as he see the need, and either install the lift assy, or the seats, The only thing that actually holds the door shut is the 2 5/16 inch carriage bolts that go through the rub rail a nd the pillar post. The inside latch assy. should also hold the door shut.

This officer feels this door should function for the following reasons; 1- Pa Insp regulations 175.110, (a), (7), (vi) (c) indicate doors must function. 2- The door is equipped with an outside handle giving the appearance to the general public that this is a door. In the event of an accident a person might waste time trying to open a door that cannot be opened. 3- There are no labels placed on the door that advise door not operable. 4- The only things that actually keep the door secured is 1 rub rail th at only crosses approx. 2/3 of the bus door and 2 5/16 inch carriage bolts that go through the rub rail & into the pillar post.

Tpr. Tom MONTKO, Bureau of Patrol, discussed this with this officer and advised to inspect the vehicle for use at this time and to submit this letter along with photos of the vehicle in order to secure a legal opinion from Penn Dot and the Nat'l Safety T ransportation Board.

School Bus inspection regulations 171.50 indicate service doors and emergency doors. School Bus regulations 171.103 and 171.104 address special service entrance and special service entrance doors on vehicles with power lifts.

Photos of the bus attached.

Respectfully Submitted, Tpr. Barry J. JOZWIAK

ID: nht87-2.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/11/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Laurel Osborne -- Regional Coordinator, National Coalition for Seatbelts on School Buses

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Laurel Osborne Regional Coordinator National Coalition for Seatbelts on School Buses P.O. Box 225 Galena, Alaska 99741

Dear Ms. Osborne:

This responds to your January 29, 1987 letter to Mr. Barry Felrice, NHTSA Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, asking about our agency's position on safety belt use in small school buses (i.e., school buses with gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less). Your letter has been referred to me for reply.

In your letter, you explain that you and the Alaska School Bus Safety Committee are interested in Alaska's implementation of Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety. You request clarification of NHTSA's position on safety belt use in small school buses because members of the committee believe that safety belts are provided on those buses only for the use of special education students. You also request information on safety belt education programs that schools could use to enc ourage the proper use of safety belts by student passengers in small school buses.

As you might know, NHTSA has two sets of regulations for school buses. The first set, issued under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, applies to the manufacture and sale of new school buses and includes our motor vehicle safety standards for school buses. One of these safety standards is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, School Bun Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, which required the safety belts for passengers on small school buses. The second set of regulations, issued under the Highway Safety Act, includes Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17 and relates to the use of School vehicles. Because requirements for the use of school buses are set by the states, Standard No. 17 sets forth recommendation s to the station for the pupil transportation aspect of their highway safety programs. We encourage states to consider Standard No. 17's recommendations but do not insist on compliance with every aspect of the standard.

As you are aware, NHTSA does not believe that a Federal requirement for safety belts on large school buses (GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds) is necessary because large school buses are very safe vehicles due to their mass, seating configuration and "comp artmentalized" seating positions. However, because small school buses experience greater force levels in a crash, Passengers on these vehicles need the added safety benefits of the belts to mitigate against injuries and fatalities. Of course, the belts o n small school buses provide safety benefits only if they are properly used. We thus recommend they be used by all pupils whenever the children are transported. This recommendation is consistent with Program Standard No. 17, which states, "Passengers in Type II school vehicles equipped with lap belts shall be required to wear them whenever the vehicle is in motion." (IV.C.3.d(5).)

With regard to your question about belt education programs, NHTSA and the National PTA have put together a "Safety Belt A/V Resource Kit" and a "Children's Training Kit" as part of our 1986 safety belt awareness campaign. The kit contains materials geare d toward increasing safety belt use by children in passenger cars, and might be helpful in promoting belt usage in small school buses. I am sending you the resource kits by separate cover.

Further, some states have developed their own safety belt education program; for school children. The person in your state who might be able to provide you with more information on the programs available in Alaska is:

Ms. Romayne Kareen Pupil Transportation Officer Pouch F State Office Building Juneau, Alaska 99811 (907) 465-2890

Also, enclosed in this letter is a February 1986 NHTSA report entitled, "School Bus Safety Belts: Their Use, Carryover Effects and Administrative Issues." The report describes an exploratory study of the experiences of various school districts with safet y belt programs for school buses. You might find the discussion of administrative and educational components of bus belt programs helpful.

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

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure

P.O. Box 225 Galena, Alaska January 20. 1987

Barry Felrice Associate Administrator for Rulemaking National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington. D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Felrice:

I have been trying to work with the Alaska School Bus Safety Committee in an effort to implement Standard 17 in the State of AlasKa. Members of this committee feel that seatbelts are provided on small school buses only for the use of special education st udents.

In one school district the belts are buckled under the seats when the buses ate used on regular routes. In another district students must buckle up only if they have been misbehaving. The contractor reports a high rate of belt vandalism in this district.

I would appreciate a clarification concerning NHTSA s position on seatbelt use in small school buses. I would also appreciate any suggestions on seatbelt education programs which could be used in schools to encourage the responsible use of belts by stude nts in their small buses. Thank you very much.

Sincerely yours. Laurel Osborne, Regional Coordinator National Coalition For Seatbelts on School Buses

ID: nht87-2.80

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/28/87

FROM: S. T. MESSINA, -- NJ DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION

TO: TERRY K. BROCK -- COONS MANUFACTURING INC.

TITLE: COONS MANUFACTURING INC. DIAMOND VIP BUS 25 PASSENGER MC 157-87

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/30/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO TERRY K BROCK; RED BOOK A32, STANDARD 217; LETTER DATED 09/09/87 FROM TERRY K. BROCK TO STEVE KRATZKE RE CLARIFICATION OF FMVSS CODE 217, OCC-1009; LETTER DATED 08/20/87 FROM TERRY K. BROC K TO SEBASTIAN MESSINA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Brock,

This is in reply to your letter of August 20, 1987 pertaining to emergency escape areas.

Parts 393.61, 393.62 and 393.63 of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations require that emergency exits comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 217. The escape areas are to be through windows of a push out type. The ordinary opening o f a window for ventilation should not be included due to possible jamming.

The front entrance door cannot be considered since the intent of the regulations is to provide emergency escape through push out windows and roof escape hatches.

I hope that we have been of assistance.

ID: nht87-2.81

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/28/87

FROM: CARL C. CLARK -- NHTSA OFFICE OF CRASHWORTHINESS RESEARCH

TO: JERRY PETERSON -- TARACO ENTERPRISES, INC.

TITLE: NRD - 12-00-87127

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 09/02/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO GERALD PETERSON; REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 202; LETTER DATED 09/29/86 FROM DALE T FANZO TO DIANE STEED; PRM-202-001; LETTER DATED 05/17/88 FROM GERALD PETERSON TO ERIKA JONES, OCC - 2052

TEXT: Dear Mr. Peterson:

Thank you for the information on your RP-448 SAF-T-Headrest (P), for attachment to the rear cab window of a light truck. I am particularly interested in your drop tests, showing that a ten pound bowling ball (close to head weight) is sufficiently padded by the headrest to prevent the rear window from breaking when the ball is dropped onto the headrest on the window from 25 feet, i.e., with a contact velocity of 27.3 mph. A rear end collision by a vehicle of like weight would have to be with a velocity difference of about 54 mph for the head to hit the cap rear window at 27 mph, so your device does indeed provide excellent need protection. With the usual tempered glass cap rear window, the glass breaks with a need contact velocity of about 15 mph. T his would be a drop height of a ten pound ball with skin simulation of about 7.5 feet. The ball without the skin simulation would expectedly break the glass at a slightly lower speed. What results did you get?

From our National Accident Sampling System (NASS) in 1985, there were 15,000 rear and collisions requiring towaway invciving 24,000 occupants in light trucks and vans, producing 13,000 estimated injuries, with less than 500 of these being serious injurie s. However, from our Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS) for 1985, 318 people were killed in light truck and van rear end collisions, although 217 of these were with the occupants in the striking vehicle.

This agency is concerned with the problem of head partial ejection in rear end collisions of light trucks, which at present do not have to have head restraints. As an after-market head protection device, your device appears from the data you have suppli ed, which we have not incependently checked, to be excellent for cealing with the problem of head partial ejection in rearing collisions. If the rear window, and hence the head restraints, are near enough to the head during normal driving, your device w ould also provide significant neck deflection (whiplash) protection.

Sincerely,

TARACO ENTERPRISES, INC. Empire Plaza 27 Empire Drive St. Paul, MN 55103

PRICE SHEET FOR TRUK-HEDREST

The basic price of the Hedrest is $ 18.95 a pair with quantity discounts given as stated below: Quantity Price Per Pair 1-499 $ 18.95 500-999 17.95 1,000-4,999 17.25 5,000 and over 16.95

Your company's logo or any other symbol can be imprinted on the Hedrest. The imprint is only available for purchases of 500 pairs or more. There is a nominal one time setup cost to cut the logo into the molds.

Companies located in Minnesota must also pay 6% sales tax.

Postage is paid by buyer - F.O.B. Shipping Point.

This price sheet is effective 5/1/88. It is subject to change without notice.

ID: nht87-2.82

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/28/87

FROM: BARRY NUDD -- SENIOR PROJECT ENGINEER, ATWOOD MOBILE PRODUCTS

TO: ERIKA JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/03/88 TO BARRY NUDD FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A32(3), STANDARD 207, VSA 108; LETTER DATED 07/14/88 EST TO S. ROBSON FROM FRANK BERNDT; STANDARD 207

TEXT: Dear Erika Jones,

Atwood Mobile Products is a manufacturer of seat adjusters serving the recreational and heavy duty vehicle markets. A majority of our customers use our product in an assembly consisting of a bucket seat mounted to a pair of seat adjusters which are in t urn attached to a pedestal that elevates the seat above the floor of a vehicle and generally incorporates the seat belt anchorages. The inclusion of the pedestal in the seating systems causes considerable confusion with some customers when testing to St andard No. 207. The main issue is whether the weight of the pedestal should be added to the weight of the seat when calculating the force to be applied to the seat back for testing the compliance of the seat adjusters when mounted between the seat and p edestal.

A letter from the Chief Counsel of NHTSA to Mack Trucks Inc. dated July 14, 1983 (copy enclosed) states [a combined test procedure that first tests the seat adjuster for its ability to stay in the adjusted position when subject to a force of 20 times the upper seat and adjuster weight and then subjects the entire seat assembly (seat, adjusters and pedestal) to a 20 g force as anchored to the vehicle structure] establishes due care in testing to FMVSS Standard No. 207.

We would conclude from this opinion that the first portion of the procedure outlined above, establishes that the seat adjusters meet the requirement of Standard No. 207 S4.2. (The second portion of the test then establishes the compliance of the seat st ructure from the seat adjusters down to the pedestal mounting in the vehicle to the general requirements of S1 that seat attachment assemblies and their installation meet the standard as well as the seat itself.)

We request your interpretation with regard to the test procedures required by Standard No. 207 for seat assemblies consisting of a trimmed seat mounted on seat adjusters which are in turn mounted to a pedestal which incorporate seat belt anchorages (S4.2 (c)), specifically as outlined in the two part test set forth (in figures 1 & 2).

Our questions are specific to the Mack Truck letter with the addition of the seat belt loads.

Question No. 1: Does a load applied as in figure 1 satisfy the requirements of Standard No. 207 concerning the seat adjusters remaining in their adjusted position?

Figure 1 tests the ability of the seat adjusters to remain in their adjusted position when subjected to 20 times the weight of all seat components mounted above the adjusters plus the Standard No. 210 belt load.

Question No. 2: Can the seat adjuster, having passed figure 1 loads be locked for the second part of the test as in figure 2.

The second portion of the test (figure 2) established the compliance of the seat structure from the bottom of the seat adjusters down to the connection of the pedestal to the floor. Because the forces in figure 2 do not accurately reflect the forces act ually imposed on the seat adjusters in an actual crash, the adjusters can be welded or otherwise locked together (the adjusters having been tested in figure 1, see paragraph three of the Mack Truck letter" ... the adjusters and upper seat section would n ever experience a loading of 20 times the weight of the entire seat in an actual crash.") while the rest of the seat assembly is tested to the requirements.

Question No. 3: Does the two part test procedure shown in figures 1 & 2 establish due care in meeting Standard 207 when applied to an upper seat and adjusters mounted on a pedestal assembly which incorporates seat belt anchorages?

There are several other questions of a more general nature that arise when applying Standard No. 207 to pedestal mounted seats as shown in figure 1.

Question No. 4: Can the 20 times seat weight load as required in Standard No. 207 S4.2 be applied at the center of gravity of the seat as more accurate alternative to application from a point outside the seat frame in the horizontal plane of the seats ce nter of gravity?

Section S5.1.1 of Standard No. 207 illustrates a bracing system apparently intended to insure that the force applied to the seat back remains in the horizontal plane of the center of gravity of the seat. If the seat frame were excessively flexible and t he braces not used, the deformation of the seat frame would raise the load application line above the plane of the center of gravity of the seat resulting in a larger moment being placed on the seat attachment. This condition is especially evident in buc ket seats mounted on pedestals which incorporate seat belt anchorages.

A simultaneous application of a type I seat belt load and a 20 times seat weight force causes deflections to the entire seat system resulting in the seat force acting significantly above the plane of the seat center of gravity. This condition can consid erably overstate the moment load on seat attachments that would occur in an actual 20g impact. To more accurately simulate a 20g impact load (which appears to be the intent

of the standard) the seat force should be applied at the seat center of gravity not at the seat back through the plane of the center of gravity. The current technique as outlined in S5.1.1 applied to pedestal mounted bucket seats is contrary to elem entary mechanical principles when significant deflections take place.

Another question related to testing for compliance to Standard No. 207 concerns paragraph S4.2(c), the simultaneous application of Standard No. 210 seat belt loads and the 20 times seat weight load.

Question No. 5: Can the seat belt load in figure 1 be eliminated based on the reasoning that an identical floor mounted seat and belt anchorage are not required to sustain the seat belt load and that the second part of the test, figure 2, subjects the se at assembly to the load to check the seat attachment assembly (pedestal) for compliance with Standard No 207?

On installations as previously described and shown in the attached figures, the seat belt anchorages are a part of the seat pedestal on which the seat adjusters and seat are fastened. If a bucket seat were to be mounted on the floor, and the seat belt a nchorages mounted to the floor with separate attachments, the seat and adjusters would not be subject to paragraph S4.2(c). Because the seat pedestal seems to be included in the definition of a seat, the pedestal mounted belt anchorages require the seat to be subjected to paragraph S4.2(c) loads with the seat remaining in its adjusted position during application of each force specified (S4.2). It can be shown that identical bucket seats can be mounted on a floor of a vehicle or on a pedestal and their respective belt anchorages can be located in identical positions, in relation to the seat adjusters.

A typical seat pedestal installation involve the seat belts wrapping around the sides of the seat. As the belts are loaded, considerable transfer of force occurs from the forward stretch of the belts to the seat frame and hence into the seat adjusters. Accepted lab techniques for applying the seat belt load include using steel cables to simulate belts and untrimmed or bare seat frames for applications of loads. The steel cable can bite into a bare seat frame and transfer a large load into a seat adju ster. This force is variable and subject to extremes when testing techniques vary within the limits set forth in Standard Nos. 207 and 210. In case of an identical bucket seat and adjusters mounted on the floor of a vehicle with the floor mounted belt anchorages located in the same position relative to the seat, this force is totally ignored (S4.2(c) is not required).

It is certainly essential that the 20 times seat weight load be applied simultaneously with the Standard No. 210 seat belt load to verify compliance with general requirements of S1 that the chance of failure of the seat attachment assemblies and their in stallation by forces acting on them as a result of vehicle impact be minimized. However, if the seat adjusters of an identical seat installation mounted on the floor are not subjected to loads induced by seat belts wrapping around the seat frame, a pede stal

mounted seat assembly should be permitted to have the tracks welded or locked together while the loads of 4.2(c) check the seat attachment assemblies to the general requirement of Standard No. 207. Of course if the seat belt anchorages were on the s eat frame itself (above the seat adjusters) then the seat adjusters would definitely have to remain in their adjusted position when subject to the simultaneous application of Standard No. 210 seat belt anchorage load and the 20 times seat weight load.

Respectfully Submitted,

TEST PROCEDURE PART 571 S207 SECTION S4.2

ALL LOADS TO BE APPLIED SIMULTANEOUSLY; FIGURE 1 AND 2

(DRAWINGS OMITTED)

ID: nht87-2.83

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/31/87 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: WILLIAM SHAPIRO -- MANAGER, REGULATIONS AND COMPLIANCE-VOLVO

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: JULY 9, 1987 LETTER FROM SHAPIRO TO JONES IS ATTACHED

TEXT: This responds to your letter concerning the Part 581 Bumper Standard. You asked whether headlamp washer-wiper systems should be removed from a vehicle prior to testing. As discussed below, the answer to your question is yes.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the statutes administered by NHTSA, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensur e that its vehicles and equipment comply with applicable requirements.

Section 581.6 of the Bumper Standard specifies a number of conditions which apply to the standard's impact tests. One of these conditions, set forth in paragraph (a)(5), is that "(t)railer hitches, license plate brackets, and headlamp washers are remove d from the vehicle." You stated that the standard was promulgated prior to the advent of headlamp washer-wiper systems, and suggested that the interpretation of "headlamp washers" can be expanded to include headlamp washer-wiper systems. It is our opini on that for purposes of the Part 581 Bumper the term "headlamp washers" is sufficiently broad to include headlamp washer-wiper systems.

ID: nht87-2.84

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/01/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. William A. Jones

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. William A. Jones The National Windshield Repair Service 7214 W. Melrose Lame

Dear Mr. Jones:

This is in response to your letter to Mr. Stephen Oesch, formerly of my staff, concerning the agency's position on the use of windshield repair, as opposed to replacement, for motor vehicles. I apologize for the delay in this response. You indicate that you are very much interested in the credibility of windshield repair as a viable alternative to windshield replacement, and that you seek any information the agency can provide in the development of safety standards regarding the repair process. We have the following comments.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for issuing safety standards that apply to new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. However, NHTSA does not approve, endorse, or offer assurances of compliance to any motor vehicles, motor vehicle equipment, or commercial services. Rather, each manufacturer must certify that its product meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Accordingly, we have never offered an opinion on the relative merits of repair ed vs. replaced windshields. That choice is left for the market to decide, subject to the limitations set forth below.

The Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply to new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. A manufacturer must certify that its motor vehicle meets the requirements of all applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards before the motor vehicl e is sold to the consumer for the first time. One of the standards with which a manufacturer must certify that the vehicle complies is Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. If for some reason a windshield must be repaired before a new vehicle is sold to a consumer for the first time (for example, if the windshield is damaged in transit from the manufacturer to the dealer's place of business), the person making the repairs would be considered an alterer under our regulations (see 49 CFR Part 567). As an a lterer, the person must certify that the windshield on the vehicle continues to comply with all of the requirements of Standard No. 205, regardless of whether the windshield was repaired or is a replacement windshield.

Once the vehicle has been sold to a first purchaser for purposes other other than resale, any repairs or replacement of the windshield are restricted only by the provision of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U .S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from "knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipme nt in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard." This agency has stated in a September 3, 1981 letter to the National Glass Dealers Association that NHTSA does not consider repairing a damaged windshield to constitute rendering inoperative with respect to Standard No. 205, even if the repaired windshield does not meet the requirements of the standard once repaired. This is because the agency considers the object or event which damaged the windshield in the first place, not the repair shop, to have rendered the windshield inoperative with respect to Standard No.205. However, the repair shop must exercise caution that it does not render another part of the vehicle or element of design inoperative with respect to another applica ble Federal motor vehicle safety standard in the course of fixing a damaged windshield. If this here the case, the repair shop could be in violation of section 108(a)(2)(A).

The Safety Act also places responsibilities on any manufacturer of a windshield repair kit. Such a manufacturer is considered a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment and is subject to the requirements of sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 14 11-1419) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety.

These are the only requirements that we have with respect to windshield repair. I can offer a suggestion in response to your request for information to help develop standards for windshield repair. You stated in your letter that you are a member of both ANSI and ASTM. One way for you, as an advocate of windshield repair, to try to ensure the reliability or efficiency of windshield repair would be to work with ANSI and ASTM to adopt product design and repair practices that result in repaired windshields meeting the performance requirements of Standard No. 205.

If you have further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Susan Schruth of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 3662992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

December 10, 1986

Mr. Steve Oesch NHTSA 400 7th St. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Oesch:

I recently talked with Clark Harper, at the Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, who informed me that National Windshield would have to write to you to request the information that we needed. We are interested in the Department of Transportation's standin g of the use of windshield repair, as opposed to replacement, on motor vehicles.

We are members of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM). We, at National Windshield, are very much interested in the credibility of windshield repair as a viable alternative to windshiel d replacement. We feel that whatever information the Department of Transportation can supply us will be very helpful in the development of safety standards regarding the repair process.

If there is any other information that you need about us please feel free to write or call. Your help concerning this matter will be very much appreciated. Thank you.

Sincerely,

The National Windshield Repair Service, Inc.

William A. Jones President

ID: nht87-2.85

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/01/87 EST

FROM: NHTSA

TITLE: CONSUMER INFORMATION

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO DECEMBER 19, 1988 LETTER FROM JONES TO REIZES AND APRIL 6, 1988 LETTER FROM REIZES TO STEED

TEXT: AIR BAGS

An air bag is one type of automatic crash protection equipment now available on many new cars. It is a very effective safety device that is built into the steering wheel or dashboard of a car. In a frontal crash, it inflates rapidly to cushion the o ccupant from violent impact with the hard interior surfaces of the car. An air bag should always be used in combination with safety belts to provide the best protection available in all kinds of crashes.

WHAT CAUSES THE AIR BAG TO INFLATE?

In a serious frontal crash -- equivalent to hitting a brick wall at a speed greater than 12 miles per hour -- a crash sensor activates the air bag. Within 1/25 of a second after impact, the bag is inflated to create a protective cushion between the occu pant and the vehicle interior, such as the steering wheel, dashboard and windshield. The air bag inflates and then deflates rapidly.

The sensors are switches which are activated by a crash. They discriminate between impacts intended to inflate the bag (those severe enough to cause injury) and events not intended to inflate the bag (i.e., "fender-benders" in parking lots, or panic stops).

HOW RELIABLE ARE THEY?

All parts of air bag systems are sealed until used and are designed to have an effective operating life exceeding that of the vehicle in which they are installed. Air bags installed in cars ten years ago can still protect in crashes today. Once an air bag has deployed, it must be replaced.

DO AIR BAGS EVER FAIL TO INFLATE IN SERIOUS CRASHES?

A malfunction is very unlikely. Since they were introduced in 1972, air bags have inflated as designed in hundreds of serious frontal crashes.

HOW MUCH WILL AN AIR BAG COST?

The cost will depend on how many are produced. These costs are relatively high now but are expected to drop significantly as more and more cars with air bags are manufactured. Government estimates at high production levels are $ 320 for air bags for bo th the driver and passenger, and $ 220 for driver only systems. New technology could lower these amounts even more.

DO I NEED TO KNOW ANYTHING SPECIAL TO OPERATE A CAR WITH AN AIR BAG IN IT?

No. The car's owner's guide will explain the proper use of the system. The car is also equipped with an indicator that provides the driver with information about the readiness of the air bag. Labels are placed in the car to alert service personnel tha t the car has an air bag. Again, remember to wear a safety belt too so that you are protected in all types of crashes.

HOW CAN I GET AN AIR BAG?

Many manufacturers are planning to offer air bag systems over the next few years.

1987

Acura Legend Coupe BMW L7, 7-Series Ford Tempo, Topaz All Mercedes-Benz Porsche 944 Turbo Volvo 7-Series

1988

Acura BMW Ford Mercedes Porsche Volvo

Olds Delta 88 Chrysler - selected lines Saab 9000

1989

Acura BMW Ford Mercedes Porsche Volvo Delta 88 Chrysler Saab 9000

Nissan - selected lines

Toyota - selected lines

1990

Acura BMW Mercedes Porsche Volvo Chrysler Saab 9000 Nissan Toyota

1 million Fords - selected lines

500 thousand GM cars-selected lines

1991

Acura BMW Ford Mercedes Porsche Volvo Chrysler Saab 9000 Nissan Toyota GM

Subaru - selected lines

1992

Acura BMW Ford Mercedes Porsche Volvo Chrysler Saab 9000 Nissan Toyota Subaru

3 million GM cars - selected lines

ID: nht87-2.86

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/03/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: David M. Romansky -- President, Atract Ad

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 8/11/88 letter from Erika Z. Jones to J. Mike Callahan (A32; Std. 108); 4/14/87 letter from J. Mike Callahan to Taylor Vinson (OCC 409); 11/19/87 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Roger M. Cox (Std. 108); 6/19/89 letter from Stephen P. Wood to Bob Sandblom (A33); 5/18/89 letter from Bob Sandblom to DOT (OCC 3584)

TEXT:

Mr. David M. Romansky President Atract Ad 3400 Hwy 427 Sanford, FL 32771

Dear Mr. Romansky:

This is in reply to your letter of August 11, 1987 asking for our "evaluation and comments" on your proposed product. This product is an adhesive label that is applied to the center highmounted stop lamp. When the brakes are applied the words "buckle-up" become visible to the driver of the car behind.

Our comments relate to the acceptability of your product under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, and its relationship to State laws. Th e simplicity of the decal is such that it may be readily applied by anyone with no special expertise or tools. There will be no violation of the Act if the decal is applied by the vehicle owner. However, a vehicle in use is subject to the laws of each St ate in which it is registered or operated. We are not familiar with State laws governing partial obscuration of the center lamp. We suggest you write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 1201 Connecticut Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 2 0036 for further information. There is at least the theoretical possibility that it may raise a question of liability, or provide a defense, in accident suits involving rear end collisions.

Questions of compliance would be raised were the decal applied by motor vehicle manufacturers, dealers, distributors, or repair businesses, either before or after sale of the vehicle. In essence, a new vehicle must comply with all applicable Federal moto r vehicle safety standards at the time of its first sale, and the persons listed above must do nothing during the life of the car to affect the compliance of a device installed in accordance with a safety standard. If the decal reduces the effective proj ected luminous area of a lamp to less than 4 1/2 square inches, interferes with light output at any of 13 specified photometric test points, or renders the signal not visible to the rear through a horizontal angle from 45 degrees to the left to 45 degree s to the right of the longitudinal axis of the vehicle, the lamp will not conform. A person creating a noncompliance may be subject to a civil penalty of up to 000 for each violation.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

August 11, 1987

Mrs. Erika Jones Chief Counsel NCC-01 National Highway Safety Administration 400 7th Street South West Washington, D.C.

Dear Mrs. Jones,

I have been directed to you by your Regional Office in Atlanta, Georgia, by C. V. Rice. Enclosed you will find a product we plan to manufacture and distribute in the United States to be applied to the collision avoidance light.

When this decal is installed on the face of the collision avoidance light lense, upon applying the brake, the message "buckle-up" becomes visible to the driver of the car directly behind it. Thus, reminding them to be sure that their seat belts are buckl ed up properly.

We would like to have your evaluation and comments on this product as our intentions are to promote public safety by the use of this product.

An immediate response would be greatly appreciated as we are working with several state programs at the present time. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely, David M. Romansky President

Enclosure/ps