ID: nht94-7.37

DATE: March 17, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Carl Haywood -- Operations Manager, Emergency Response Specialists (Morris, Alabama)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/21/93 from Carl Haywood to John Womack

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of December 21, 1993, requesting information about seating requirements for emergency response units you are designing to respond to chemical spills. The response units are tractor trailer combinations which can be driven in and out of the cargo bay of C-130 Hercules aircraft which are used to transport the units to the site. You further describe the response units as follows:

Our response units are designed to transport all six (6) of our response team members, for over the highway transportation three (3) of our team members will ride in the tractor and the remaining three (3) will ride in the trailer. During air transportation all six (6) team members will ride in the trailer. By providing seating with lap and shoulder restraints in the response unit for both ground and air transportation we eliminate the need for special crew cabins for air transportation, and extra vehicles for ground transportation.

This conserves the limited space available on the C-130 allowing us to carry all the equipment needed to respond effectively to large scale chemical releases.

You requested information on the regulation of the seating in the response units. You have already contacted several Department of Transportation agencies, including the Federal Aviation Administration.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. Our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 et seq., Safety Act), to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act defines the term "motor vehicle" as follows:

any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

If a vehicle is a "motor vehicle" under the definition, then the vehicle must comply with all applicable safety standards, including those related to seating and occupant restraint. However, if a vehicle is not a motor vehicle under this definition, then the vehicle need not comply with the agency's safety standards because such a vehicle is outside the agency's scope of authority.

Applying this definition to the response units, NHTSA believes the response units are motor vehicles within the meaning of the Safety Act. In determining whether a vehicle which has both on-road and off-road uses is a motor vehicle, the agency looks at whether the vehicle uses public roads on a necessary and

recurring basis. Applying this criteria to the response units, we believe that the response units have a primary function of highway transportation of personnel and equipment to the chemical spill site.

NHTSA's safety standards specify different requirements for different types of motor vehicles. Therefore, in order to determine the occupant seating requirements for the response units, it is necessary to determine how these vehicles are classified under our regulations. NHTSA he fines a "truck" as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment." The tractor portion of the response unit has seating capacity for at least three passengers, but its primary use appears to be to draw the trailer. Therefore, it appears that this vehicle is a "truck" for the purpose of Federal regulations.

NHTSA defines a "trailer" as "a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle." NHTSA believes the trailer portion of the response units would be considered trailers for the purpose of Federal regulations.

NHTSA has exercised its authority under the Safety Act to issue four safety standards relevant to occupant seating and restraint: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages.

Standard No. 207 establishes strength and other performance requirements for all "occupant seats" in passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks, and for the driver's seats in buses, except that the requirements do not apply to side-facing seats. Therefore, all "occupant seats" in tractor portion of the response units must meet the requirements of Standard No. 207. Standard No. 207 does not apply to trailers, therefore, the seats in the trailer portion of the response units are not subject to the requirements of Standard No. 207.

Standard No. 208 specifies occupant protection requirements based on vehicle type and seating position within the vehicle. Different requirements also apply depending on the GVWR of the vehicle. The discussion which follows is limited to vehicles with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds. As explained below, trucks are required to have, at a minimum, a lap belt at every designated seating position. As with Standard No. 207, Standard No. 208 does not apply to trailers. Therefore, the seats in the trailer portion of the response units are not required to have any type of safety belt at any seating position.

The requirements for trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more are contained in section S4.3 of Standard No. 208. Vehicle manufacturers have a choice of two options for providing occupant crash protection in trucks manufactured on or after September 1, 1990. Option 1 requires vehicle manufacturers to provide an automatic protection system at all seating positions that meets the frontal and lateral crash protection and rollover requirements. Option 2 requires vehicle manufacturers to install lap or lap/shoulder belts at every seateral Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 or a matter concerning the preemption of State statutes by Standard No. 108.

Under the statutes and regulations we administer, the applicable law is 15 U.S.C. Section 1397 (a)(2)(A) . This Section states in pertinent part:

"No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor d applies to all seat belt assemblies as separate items of motor vehicle equipment, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as replacements. Thus, if seat belts are voluntarily installed at the seats in the trailer portion of the response units, the seat belts would be required to comply with Standard No. 209.

Standard No. 210 establishes strength and location requirements for seat belt anchorages installed in vehicles, where seat belts are required by Standard No. 208. Therefore, anchorages are required for the lap belts in the tractor, but are not required in the trailer.

Although all of the safety standards cited in this letter do not apply to each seating position in your proposed emergency response unit, the agency nevertheless encourages additional consideration and application of those performance requirements that are appropriate to a safe design.

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

ID: nht76-4.41

DATE: 03/26/76

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

TO: Thomas A. Kirwan III - Capco

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of February 25, 1976, requesting information concerning the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations applicable to transit vehicles, specifically, Dodge vans that will be used in a rural transportation system.

The answers to your questions are as follows:

(1) "Which FMVSS apply to vans used in transit service?"

If your Dodge vans are designed to carry 10 persons or less they would qualify as "multipurpose passenger vehicles", as defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3. As multipurpose passenger vehicles, the Dodge vans would be subject to the requirements of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards listed below. The standards marked with an asterick (*) are equipment standards and do not apply to the vehicles themselves. Rather, these standards set forth requirements for manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment for use in multipurpose passenger vehicles.

No. 101 - Control Location, Identification, and Illumination.

No. 102 - Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect.

No. 103 - Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems.

No. 104 - Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems.

*No. 106-74 - Brake Hoses.

No. 107 - Reflecting Surfaces.

No. 108 - Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

No. 111 - Rearview Mirrors.

No. 112 - Headlamp Concealment Devices.

No. 113 - Hood Latch System.

*No. 116 - Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids.

No. 118 - Power Operated Window Systems.

*No. 119 - New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.

No. 120 - Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars.

No. 124 - Accelerator Control Systems.

*No. 125 - Warning Devices.

*No. 205 - Glazing Materials.

No. 206 - Door Locks and Door Retention Components.

No. 207 - Seating Systems.

No. 208 - Occupant Crash Protection.

*No. 209 - Seat Belt Assemblies.

No. 210 - Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages.

No. 211 - Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs and Hub Caps.

No. 213 - Child Seating Systems.

No. 219 - Windshield Zone Intrusion.

No. 301-75 - Fuel System Integrity.

No. 302 - Flammability of Interior Materials.

The manufacturer of the Dodge vans must affix a label to each vehicle certifying that the vehicle is in compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations, as required by 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. This certification label should be affixed to the door or door post of each vehicle, and you should check to make certain that it is present.

Please note that if the Dodge vans are designed to carry more than 10 persons, they would be classified as "buses" under 49 CFR Part 567.3, and the list of applicable safety standards would differ.

(2) "Does NHTSA recommend a set of vehicle specifications for vans used in transit?"

No. The NHTSA has issued only the requirements found in the motor vehicle safety standards and regulations.

(3) "Do any FMVSS apply specifically to modified vans (e.g. those filled with hydraulic lift for wheelchairs and a raised roof)?"

No. Such vehicles must meet the same standards as other MPV's.

(4) "Are there any regulations which apply to fiberglass bubbletops on vans in transit service?"

Yes. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, 49 CFR 571.205, specifies requirements for glazing materials for use in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Rigid plastic materials that are to be used as covers for openings in the roof of a vehicle must conform to the requirements specified in paragraph S5.1.2.1 of Standard No. 205.

(5) "Are there any regulations, perhaps within the Federal Highway Safety Act, which apply to driver qualifications?"

Yes. Driver qualifications for transit vehicles are governed by Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, 49 CFR Part 391, Qualifications of Drivers.

(6) "Could you provide any further information which you feel would contribute to the safe operation of our transit system?"

At the present time the NHTSA has not issued any general guidelines concerning the organization or operation of transit systems. You may, however, wish to contact the Urban Mass Transportation Administration of this Department for information on this subject.

I hope this letter has been responsive to your questions. Please contact us if we can of any further assistance.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

CAPCO

February 25, 1976

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Gentlemen:

The Capital Area Planning Council is in the process of implementing a rural transportation system as part of the Federal Highway Administration's Rural Highway Public Transportation Demonstration Program (Section 147 of the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1973). We are, therefore, interested in obtaining information concerning vehicle specifications and safety standards for transit vehicles.

Since our transit fleet will be entirely composed of Dodge vans rather than standard transit buses, we are uncertain as to which Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards apply specifically to vans used in transit operations. Could you assist us by providing the answers to the following questions:

1) Which FMVSS apply to vans used in transit service?

2) Does NHTSA recommend a set of vehicle specifications for vans used in transit?

3) Do any FMVSS apply specifically to modified vans (e.g. those fitted with hydraulic lift for wheelchairs and a raised roof)? 4) Are there any regulations which apply to fiberglass bubbletops on vans in transit service?

5) Are there any regulations, perhaps within the Federal Highway Safety Act, which apply to driver qualifications?

6) Could you provide any further information which you feel would contribute to the safe operation of our transit system.

Enclosed is a draft of our vehicle specifications. I would appreciate your comments and suggestions prior to March 10 so the necessary revisions may be made before our public hearings begin.

Yours very truly,

Thomas A. Kirwan III -- Transportation Planning Intern

Enclosure

Vehicle Specifications (Minimum Requirements)

1 ton - 125" wheelbase 350 cu. in. 8 cyl. engine 7400 lbs. GVW Min. Front Axle 3300 lbs., Rear Axle 5050 lbs. Automatic Transmission Power Disc Brakes Power Steering Heavy Duty Front/Rear Shock Absorbers Heavy Duty Front/Rear Springs Heavy Duty Alternator Heavy Duty Battery Heater (High Capacity) Air Conditioning (High Capacity) - 22,000 B.T.U. Slant Line or Vented Tinted Glass Windows Gauges - Oil Pressure and Ammeter Lighting Package (Door Actuated) Exterior Lighting to meet F.M.V.S.S. Insulation Package Undercoating Dual Electric Horn and Horn Bar Large Lo-Mount Side Mirrors Seat Belts for all Passengers Two Speed Electric Wipers and Window Washer Exhaust Emission Controls to meet F.M.V.S.S. and State Code High Capacity Fuel Tank Tires 8.00 x 16.5 (10 Ply Truck Type or Steel Radial) Front Stabilizer Bar Oil Filter - 1 Quart Freight, Handling, and Dealer Preparation

Modifications

Raised, Collapse Resistant Steel Roof Cap Restructured, penetration resistant sidewalls, and rear end sections Gas Tank Shield Drive Shaft Guards Passenger Door Entrance Heavy Duty Driver Door Control (manual) Entrance Door and Front Section Padding Passenger Grab Rails Two Leaf Side Door (Extended Doorway) Electric Hydraulic Lift, Expanded Metal Ramp, Semi-Automatic/Manual Override (minimum lift capacity 500 lbs.) Wheelchair Tie Downs (2 prs. mounted at 45 degrees) Rubber Non-Skid Flooring First Aid Kit 2 3/4 lbs. - 10 BC Dry Chemical Fire Extinguisher Reflector Flare Kit

ID: nht81-3.10

DATE: 08/25/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ford Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

AUG 25 1981 NOA-30

Roger E. Maugh, Director Automotive Safety Office Environmental and Safety Engineering Staff Ford Motor Company The American Road Dearborn Michigan 48121

Dear Mr. Maugh:

This responds to your letter of July 31, 1981, to Hugh Oates of my staff requesting an interpretation concerning Safety Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. You ask whether you are correct in your belief that the requirements of paragraph S4.3.1.1 of the standard apply to the seat belt anchorages used in your planned 1982-model Continental passenger cars rather than the requirements of paragraph S4.3.1.2.

Paragraph S4.3.1 of the Standard specifies location requirements for the seat belt anchorages for Type 1 seat belt assemblies and the pelvic portion of Type 2 seat belt assemblies. Paragraph S4.3.1.1 applies in those installations in which the seat belt does not bear upon the seat frame, and the requirements of paragraph S4.3.1.2 apply in installations in which the seat belt does bear upon the seat frame. On the 1982 Continental passenger cars, the buckle end of the seat belt assembly passes through a "console support structure" which is connected to the bottom of the seat frame. However, you contend that since the console support structure is not a structural component of the seat frame, the seat belt does not bear upon the seat frame and, consequently, that paragraph S4.3.1.1 applies.

Your interpretation of paragraphs S4.3.1.1 and S4.3.1.2 is correct. The phrase "bears upon the seat frame" as used in paragraph S4.3.1.2 refers to seat belt assemblies in which the seat belt presses or rests directly on the main structural frame of the seat. As illustrated in the photographs supplied in your letter, the seat belt in the 1982-model Continental passenger cars does not bear upon the structural seat frame. Rather, the belt rests on the console support frame which is not a necessary structural component of the main seat frame, but is merely attached to the seat frame at the bottom on the inboard side. Since the seat belt is located to the side of the seat frame and does not bear upon the structural seat frame itself, the requirements of paragraph S4.3.1.1 apply to the location of the seat belt anchorages used in the 1982 Continental passenger cars rather than the requirements of Paragraph S4.3.1.2.

We note that the console support frame could easily have been attached to the transmission tunnel rather than to the seat frame. In that case, the seat belt obviously would not bear upon the seat frame. However, with such a design, the frame supporting the belt would not move with the seat, and the driver could have problems reaching the belt and positioning it properly when the seat is in certain positions. The design of the passenger seat and seat belt assembly in the 1982 Continental is very desirable because attachment of the console support frame to the seat makes the seat belt very accessible in all seat positions. The fact that the console was attached to the seat frame for convenience purposes does not mean that the console is part of the seat frame within the meaning of S4.3.1.2.

The original intent of the location requirements of FMVSS 210 was to enhance belt performance with acceptable belt comfort and convenience. The specific requirements that are the subject of this interpretation were intended to ensure that belts would not develop excessive slack if a seat structural member bent or failed during a crash, and to reduce the likelihood that the lap belt would move into the abdominal area during a crash. We trust that Ford has adequately tested the configuration that is proposed here to ensure proper performance in a crash situation.

Please contact this office if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

July 31, 1981

Hugh F. Oates, Jr., Esq. Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S. W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Oates:

This letter is to request concurrence in Ford Motor Company's view that compliance to section S4.3 "Location" of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210 properly should be evaluated under subsection S4.3.1.1 for passenger seats of a new design being introduced in 1982 model Continental passenger cars. The applicability of subsection S4.3.1.1, rather than subsection S4.3.1.2, of Standard No. 210 was discussed between Ford personnel and you and Mr. R. Hitchcock of the Administration in Dearborn yesterday. At that time you were shown the new seat design and told why we believe it presents the possibility that a compliance tester might erroneously conclude that it should be evaluated against the criteria of subsection S4.3.1.2. If anchorage locations of these vehicles were to be evaluated under that subsection, rather than subsection S4.3.1.1, the location specifications could not be met.

The potential for misunderstanding arises, we believe, out of the fact that the bottom of the seat frame has connected to its inboard side a console support structure through which the inboard (buckle) end of the seat belt assembly passes. The console support structure is intended to provide a base for a "mini-console" that is to be installed on the inboard side of each half of a split bench seat. It is not a structural member of the seat frame and therefore, in our opinion, the fact that the inboard end of the belt would bear on the structure of the console support should not result in the anchorage locations being evaluated under the criteria of subsection S4.3.1.2 which apply only to installations in which the "...belt bears upon the seat frame...".

As may be seen from sketches provided by the Administration to contractors evaluating compliance to Standard No. 210 (Attachment A), the routing of the seat belts contemplated by the drafters of the standard as "bearing upon the seat frame" involve configurations wholly unlike that in question. Moreover, routing the inboard end of the seat belt assembly through a console support structure that moves with the seat frame has the salutary effect of helping to best position the belt and improving belt accessibility, no matter what position the seat is adjusted to. Ford could obviate all risk of misapplication of subsection S4.3.1.2 to the new seat design by physically modifying the console support so that the inboard end of the seat belt would not bear upon its structure, but only on the trim cover. For the reasons discussed above, we respectfully submit that we should not be required to do so.

Furnished for your reference are Attachment B which depicts the lower seat frame for the 1982 Continental, Attachment C, the console support and its cover, Attachment D, the untrimmed console support attached to the seat frame, and Attachment E, a finished seat assembly.

In order to avoid needless misunderstanding about the compliance of these seat belt assemblies to the anchorage location provisions of Standard No. 210 after production commences in mid-August, I should appreciate receiving the Administration's prompt confirmation of our analysis of the applicability of subsection S4.3.1.1 to the newly designed seat and console assembly, or your expression of any grounds on which the Administration may disagree with that analysis. Sincerely

Roger E. Maugh

Attachments

ID: 9508

Mr. Carl Haywood
Operations Manager
Emergency Response Specialists
2251 Happy Top Road
Morris, Alabama 35116

Dear Mr. Haywood:

This responds to your letter of December 21, 1993, requesting information about seating requirements for emergency response units you are designing to respond to chemical spills. The response units are tractor trailer combinations which can be driven in and out of the cargo bay of C-130 Hercules aircraft which are used to transport the units to the site. You further describe the response units as follows:

Our response units are designed to transport all six (6) of our response team members, for over the highway transportation three (3) of our team members will ride in the tractor and the remaining three (3) will ride in the trailer. During air transportation all six (6) team members will ride in the trailer. By providing seating with lap and shoulder restraints in the response unit for both ground and air transportation we eliminate the need for special crew cabins for air transportation, and extra vehicles for ground transportation. This conserves the limited space available on the C-130 allowing us to carry all the equipment needed to respond effectively to large scale chemical releases.

You requested information on the regulation of the seating in the response units. You have already contacted several Department of Transportation agencies, including the Federal Aviation Administration.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. Our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., Safety Act), to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act defines the term "motor vehicle" as follows:

any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

If a vehicle is a "motor vehicle" under the definition, then the vehicle must comply will all applicable safety standards, including those related to seating and occupant restraint. However, if a vehicle is not a motor vehicle under this definition, then the vehicle need not comply with the agency's safety standards because such a vehicle is outside the agency's scope of authority.

Applying this definition to the response units, NHTSA believes the response units are motor vehicles within the meaning of the Safety Act. In determining whether a vehicle which has both on-road and off-road uses is a motor vehicle, the agency looks at whether the vehicle uses public roads on a necessary and recurring basis. Applying this criteria to the response units, we believe that the response units have a primary function of highway transportation of personnel and equipment to the chemical spill site.

NHTSA's safety standards specify different requirements for different types of motor vehicles. Therefore, in order to determine the occupant seating requirements for the response units, it is necessary to determine how these vehicles are classified under our regulations. NHTSA defines a "truck" as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment." The tractor portion of the response unit has seating capacity for at least three passengers, but its primary use appears to be to draw the trailer. Therefore, it appears that this vehicle is a "truck" for the purpose of Federal regulations.

NHTSA defines a "trailer" as "a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle." NHTSA believes the trailer portion of the response units would be considered trailers for the purpose of Federal regulations.

NHTSA has exercised its authority under the Safety Act to issue four safety standards relevant to occupant seating and restraint: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages.

Standard No. 207 establishes strength and other performance requirements for all "occupant seats" in passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks, and for the driver's seats in buses, except that the requirements do not apply to side-facing seats. Therefore, all "occupant seats" in tractor portion of the response units must meet the requirements of Standard No. 207. Standard No. 207 does not apply to trailers, therefore, the seats in the trailer portion of the response units are not subject to the requirements of Standard No. 207.

Standard No. 208 specifies occupant protection requirements based on vehicle type and seating position within the vehicle. Different requirements also apply depending on the GVWR of the vehicle. The discussion which follows is limited to vehicles with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds. As explained below, trucks are required to have, at a minimum, a lap belt at every designated seating position. As with Standard No. 207, Standard No. 208 does not apply to trailers. Therefore, the seats in the trailer portion of the response units are not required to have any type of safety belt at any seating position.

The requirements for trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more are contained in section S4.3 of Standard No. 208. Vehicle manufacturers have a choice of two options for providing occupant crash protection in trucks manufactured on or after September 1, 1990. Option 1 requires vehicle manufacturers to provide an automatic protection system at all seating positions that meets the frontal and lateral crash protection and rollover requirements. Option 2 requires vehicle manufacturers to install lap or lap/shoulder belts at every seating position. If a manufacturer chooses to comply with Option 2, the lap belt or pelvic portion of a lap/shoulder belt must have either an emergency locking retractor or an automatic locking retractor.

Standard No. 209 sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. This standard applies to all seat belt assemblies as separate items of motor vehicle equipment, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as replacements. Thus, if seat belts are voluntarily installed at the seats in the trailer portion of the response units, the seat belts would be required to be comply with Standard No. 209.

Standard No. 210 establishes strength and location requirements for seat belt anchorages installed in vehicles, where seat belts are required by Standard No. 208. Therefore, anchorages are required for the lap belts in the tractor, but are not required in the trailer.

Although all of the safety standards cited in this letter do not apply to each seating position in your proposed emergency response unit, the agency nevertheless encourages additional consideration and application of those performance requirements that are appropriate to a safe design.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#207#208#209#210 D:3/17/94

ID: 1984-1.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/27/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. William H. Harper

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. William H. Harper 21109-21st Avenue West Lyonwood, Washington 98306

This is in reply to your letter of January 10, 1984, making our opinion with respect to your plan to ship the frame of a 1959 Lotus 11 to England where a new body will be installed on it. The body is a duplicate of the original. You have asked for the status of the assemblage upon its re-entry into the United States, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

The jurisdiction of the Act covers "motor vehicles" which are defined in pertinent part as those "manufactured primarily for use on the public roads." The photos you enclosed appear to show the Lotus 11 as a racing machine of single seat configuration. We do not consider single seat machines manufactured for competition purposes, and which are not licensed for use on the public roads, to be "motor vehicles." We also regulate "motor vehicle equipment." It follows that individual equipment items intended for use on a competition vehicle are not considered "motor vehicle equipment" subject to our jurisdiction and regulation. Therefore, if your Lotus 11 has not been licensed for use on the public roads, in our opinion you are not subject to the requirements of this agency including posting a compliance bond upon re-entry of the assemblage.

Even if the Lotus 11 has been licensed for use on the roads and is a "motor vehicle," your responsibilities, if any, would appear to be minimal. Although a "motor vehicle" manufactured before January 1, 1968, is not covered by the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, those standards do cover certain items of replacement equipment which must themselves conform upon entry into the U.S. You have told us that all equipment items will be detached from the frame before its shipment to England, and that upon its return, the assemblage will consist only of the old frame and the new body, minus its windshield, mirrors, and gas tank, as well as brakes, wheels, lighting equipment, door handles, etc. There are no Federal safety standards for frames or bodies of the nature you describe, and therefore this assemblage of "motor vehicle equipment" may also enter free of a compliance bond. However, if you subsequently decide to import brake hoses, lighting equipment, tires, brake fluid, glazing materials, or seat belt assemblies, these items would have to be certified as meeting the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards in order to be imported.

We hope that this has been helpful to you. If you have any further questions you may phone Taylor Vinson of this office (202) 426-9511.

Sincerely, Original signed by Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

January 10, 1984 William H. Harper 12209-21st Avenue W Lynwood, Washington 98036

Chief Counsel's Office of NHTSA 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sirs,

I am the owner of a 1959 Lotus 11, serial #231, which I am restoring to original condition. As part of this process I am shipping the bare frame of the car back to England where the firm of Williams & Pritchard, who made the original body in 1959, will make a new body for the car. This new body will be an exact duplicate of the original made in 1959. When the body is finished, it will be attached to the frame and shipped back to myself in Seattle, Washington.

In talking to Don Davidson of U.S. Customs in Seattle (206-442-5370) I was advised that I would have to post a compliance bond upon re-entry of the frame/body into the U.S., unless I could get favorable written clarification from the NHTSA on its status. This is in question as to whether or not the car would now have to meet 1984 regulations, whether or not it is now classed as a 1959 or 1984 car, or whether it is a car at all or an "item of motor vehicle equipment".

It is my belief that this new body should be classed as an "item of motor vehicle equipment" and not as a car just because the frame has made a round trip to England to assist in the manufacture of the new body. It is also my belief that since it is being used in the restoration of a car and in absolutely no way associated with a "replica" car that this new body should not have to meet any 1984 standards such as bumpers or door intrusion. What I need from your office is a written ruling/opinion on these matters which will clarify them for U.S. Customs.

The addendum contains information that may assist you in making a decision. If you have further questions I may be reached at 206-775-5728 (home) or 206-655-7814 (work). Collect calls can be accepted at the first number prior to 9:30 EST. Your prompt and speedy reply would be greatly appreciated as the frame was originally scheduled to be shipped to England on January 30 prior to this problem developing. I want to clarify this matter before I ship anything out of the U.S.

Sincerely, Original signed by William H. Harper

Addendum

Only the original bare frame is being sent to England. By bare frame I mean that there is no suspension, axles, brakes, wheels, engine, transmission, or anything else attached to the frame. These parts are all staying in the U.S., will be rebuilt, and will be reinstalled onto the original frame upon its return to the U.S. The original frame will not be modified in any way while in England and is only being sent there so that the new body may be built around and attached to the frame, as the original was. The new body is being made because the original is badly damaged, torn, and corroded. The new body will be made entirely of aluminum and will have no windshield, headlights, taillights, door handles, etc. attached. These parts from the original body will be reattached to the new body in the U.S. All that is coming back to the U.S. is the original frame with a new hare, unpainted aluminum body attached to it.

Enclosed are two photographs. One shows the complete body attached to the frame and the other is with the upper half of the body removed, showing the lower half of the body and part of the frame. The light grey or rusty steel tubing is the frame and anything made of aluminum is what I call the body. These pictures are of the current "old" body and were taken during disassembly of the car prior to begining its restoration. The windshield, mirrors, and gas tank that are shown in the pictures will not be shipped to England nor will duplicates of these parts be made there. When the frame/body combination returns from England it will look like these pictures; except minus windshield, mirrors, and gas tank of course.

Insert picture here

ID: 1984-4.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/13/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company -- Thomas D. Turner, Manager, Engineering Services

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter dated December 5, 1983, to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning the remanufacture of school buses. You requested NHTSA to confirm that when an old bus body is placed on a new chassis "the chassis is the incomplete vehicle and that the completed vehicle must conform to all applicable FMVSS and be properly certified based on a date no earlier than the date of manufacture of the chassis." You also requested an interpretation that the remanufacture of a school bus using a new body on an old chassis would be considered the manufacture of a new school bus which would be required to be certified based on the date of manufacture of the final stage, completed vehicle.

You requested confirmation that NHTSA consider the school bus chassis to be the "incomplete vehicle" under 49 CFR Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages. "Incomplete vehicle" is defined in 49 CFR @ 568.2 as: an assemblage consisting, as a minimum, of frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations, other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed vehicle.

If the school bus chassis is completed to the extent that it has the above-listed components and merely needs the addition of a body by a final-stage manufacturer, it would be considered an incomplete vehicle.

You are correct in your understanding of 49 CFR @ 567.5, Requirements for Manufacturers of Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages. The completed vehicle must be properly certified by the final-stage manufacturer as conforming to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards based on a date no earlier than the manufacturing date of the incomplete vehicle, and no later than the date of completion of the final-stage manufacture. The final-stage manufacturer must be consistent in its choice of completion date; it cannot choose one date to determine applicability of certain standards while choosing another date for other standards.

You are also correct that the agency has previously said that the final-stage manufacturer's use of a new body on an old chassis does not amount to the manufacture of a new motor vehicle. The agency is aware of your concern regarding the remanufacture of school buses using a new bus body on an old chassis. NHTSA acknowledges your petition for rulemaking filed pursuant to 49 CFR Part 552, Petitions for Rulemaking, Defect, and Noncompliance Orders, and will conduct a technical review of your petition in accordance with this part.

SINCERELY,

BLUE BIRD

BODY COMPANY

December 5, 1983

Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

SUBJECT: PETITION FOR RULEMAKING AND/OR INTERPRETIVE ACTION

Dear Ms. Stead:

Blue Bird Body Company has received requests to mount new school bus bodies on used school bus chassis that are several years old. In the past these requests have been few and scattered and we have declined this business due to the obvious concerns dealing with safety, liability, compliance, certification, etc. We currently plan to continue with our practice of turning down these requests, however, with these requests becoming more numerous, we feel it is necessary to address the compliance and certification requirements involved in remanufacturing a school bus using a new body and a used chassis.

It is our understanding, based on the December 29, 1977 NHTSA letter from Chief Counsel, Joseph J. Levin Jr. to the Honorable John Tower, reference NOA-30, and other NHTSA correspondence, that the manufacture of new motor vehicles includes the remanufacture of vehicles when such remanufacture is accomplished using a new chassis. Thus, remanufacture of a school bus using a new school bus chassis and a used school bus body constitutes the manufacture of a new school bus which would be subject to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards in effect on the date of manufacture. The date of manufacture would be any date no earlier than the date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle and no later than the date of completion of the final stage manufacture. It is our interpretation that the chassis is the incomplete vehicle and therefore, the date of manufacture of the chassis is the earliest limiting date for the purposes of compliance and certification. Thus, a 1975 bus body, for example, built without FMVSS 221 Joint construction or FMVSS 222 Seats and Barriers, would have to be upgraded to meet these and other applicable standards if it were to be mounted on a 1983 school bus chassis and completed as a final stage vehicle. We request your confirmation that the chassis is the incomplete vehicle and that the completed vehicle must conform to all applicable FMVSS and be properly certified based on a date no earlier than the date of manufacture of the chassis.

Assuming that the above interpretation is correct and confirmed by NHTSA, it is the opinion of Blue Bird Body Company that the manufacture of school buses using new chassis is a safe and acceptable practice because both body and chassis will be required to conform to current FMVSS and the completed vehicle is required to be properly certified.

The situation discussed in the first paragraph above, however, where school buses are remanufactured using a new body and an old chassis causes us concern. If the NHTSA does not consider this practice as manufacture of a new school bus, then apparently, no certification would be required and the vehicle would not have to conform to current FMVSS. If the agency does consider the remanufacture of school buses using new bodies and old chassis as the manufacture of a new vehicle, then questions of responsibility for compliance of the incomplete vehicle (the chassis), certification procedures, dates of effectivity, etc., are presented and must be addressed. For example, if a 1983 school bus body were to be mounted on a 1975 school bus chassis and completed as a school bus, what date would be used in determining the FMVSS that apply to the completed vehicle? If the 1975 date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle (the chassis) is used, then the completed school bus would not be required to have FMVSS 221 Joint Construction or FMVSS 222 Seats and Barriers. We do not believe this would be an acceptable situation in terms of safety nor in the best interest of the school buses' owner, operator, passengers, the manufacturer of the incomplete and/or completed vehicle, the NHTSA or the pupil transportation industry in general.

In the interest of safety and for the benefit of all parties concerned, Blue Bird Body Company requests that the NHTSA consider the situations discussed herein, initiate Rulemaking action and/or issue appropriate interpretations, to address the remanufacture of school buses. We feel appropriate action concerning remanufacture of school buses using new bodies on old chassis would be to (1) define this as the manufacture of a new vehicle to which FMVSS apply, (2) require that remanufactured school buses using new bodies on old chassis meet all applicable FMVSS and be certified based on the date of final manufacture of the final stage, completed vehicle.

I trust that this letter provides sufficient information to NHTSA to enable proper action to be taken. If Blue Bird can be of any assistance or further information is needed, please feel free to contact me.

Thomas D. Turner Manager Engineering Services

C: WILBUR RUMPH -- V.P. ENGINEERING

ID: nht71-5.24

DATE: 12/15/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Mobilefreeze Co., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 7, 1971, to Mr. Stan Haransky, Truck Body and Equipment Association, Inc., concerning the mounting height of lamps and reflectors on your motor-cycle trailers.

A copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, "Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment" is enclosed for your information. The minimum mounting height for lamps and reflectors listed in Table IV of this Standard is 15 inches. We do not have the authority to exempt any motor vehicles from meeting these requirements.

Enc.

ID: nht93-4.48

DATE: June 25, 1993

FROM: Kenneth P. Simons -- Lawyer

TO: Department of Transportation -- Trucking Division

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/25/94 from John Womack to Ken Simons (A42; Std. 121)

TEXT:

I would like an answer or information as to whether or not over the road trailers (as in tractor trailer) of recent manufacture are required to be equipped with "maxi" brakes on one or both axles.

The "maxi" brake I am referring to is found on all road tractors and sets the brakes automatically when the air pressure gets down to a minimum level.

Thank you for you anticipated cooperation.

ID: nht74-1.28

DATE: 07/15/74

FROM: C. BAKER FOR E. T. DRIVER -- NHTSA

TO: Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

COPYEE: L. C. OWEN

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 27 concerning the location of motorcycle turn signal lamps relative to a combination stop lamp and reflex reflector.

The minimum edge to edge separation distance specified in Table IV of FMVSS No. 108 for motorcycle turn signal lamps is to be measured from the edge of the illuminated surface of both lamps.

The answer to your question 2 is therefore applicable, "2. edge to edge of tail and stop lamp so drawn in sketch C?"

ID: 77-3.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/04/77

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

TO: Humanoid Systems

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 3, 1977, request for confirmation that @ 572.7(b) of Part 572, Anthropomorphic Test Dummy (49 CFR 572), specifies a minimum time period during which the pendulum used in testing may not reverse direction rather than an exact time.

Your interpretation is correct. The specification that the pendulum "shall not reverse direction until T=123 ms" means that reverse travel must not occur earlier than 123 milliseconds after chordal displacement begins. The agency believes that this language can be improved and intends to clarify it at the next opportunity.