ID: 1985-01.51

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/20/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey E.Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. A. R. Fisher

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. A. R. Fisher Manager, Environmental Affairs New United Motor Manufacturing Inc. 45500 Fremont Boulevard Fremont, California 94538

Dear Mr. Fisher:

This is in response to your letter of October 5, 1984, to Mr. Vinson of this office. Please accept our apologies for the delay in responding.

Under the assumptions that your Fremont plant has been granted Foreign Trade Zone status and that light-duty engines are "certified at time of entry," you have asked for confirmation that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not require a DOT HS-7 Form for the engines.

Motor vehicle engines are not subject to any form of certification to DOT requirements, and no HS-7 Form is required for them under any circumstances.

You have also asked for confirmation that no HS-7 need be filed for finished vehicles entering the stream of commerce of the United States provided that they are produced at the Fremont plant and are in compliance at the time of delivery.

For Customs purposes, motor vehicles manufactured in Foreign Trade Zones within the United States are not considered as subject to importation requirements until they leave the Zone and enter the Customs Territory of the United States. Under the joint DOT-Treasury (Customs) regulation governing importation of vehicles subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, a declaration must be given (usually the Form HS-7) when vehicles enter the United States, even if they bear the certification of compliance to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (19 C.F.R. 12.80(b)(1)(ii)). Technically, Customs could require declarations for all vehicles manufactured in the Zone at Fremont.

However, declarations may be waived for certified U.S., Mexican, or Canadian-registered vehicles arriving at land borders (19 C.F.R. 12.80(f)), at the discretion of the District Director of the border crossing involved. We view the Fremont Trade Zone situation as analogous, and you may inform the local District Customs Director that this agency would have no objection if the declaration requirement were waived for the cars to be produced at Fremont. Should the District Director decide that authority was lacking for such a waiver, your recourse would appear to be to petition the U.S. Customs Service for rulemaking to amend Section 12.80(f) to include certified but unregistered vehicles produced within Foreign Trade Zones.

In closing, we request that your company file a Manufacturer Identification statement with this agency as required by 49 C.F.R Part 566.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

October 5, 1984

Mr. Taylor Vinson National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Dept. of Transportation 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Vinson:

This letter is a follow up to a conversation last week with Mr. Clive Van Orden concerning the enclosed letter of August 17, 1984. I would like to reconfirm that NHTSA does not need to receive nor require DOT HS Form 7 for light-duty engines imported by New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc. (NUMMI) for the purpose of new vehicle production, providing that such engines are certified at the time of entry and the Fremont plant has been granted Foreign Trade Zone status. If the above understanding is correct we would appreciate receiving a confirmation letter.

Also, please advise us if the filing of DOT HS Form 7 will not be necessary for finished vehicles entered into the commerce of the United States provided such vehicles 1) are produced at the Fremont plant and 2) are in compliance at the time of delivery.

Sincerely,

A.R. Fisher, PhD Manager, Environmental Affairs

cc: E. Muirhead - NUMMI T. Welte - U.S. Customs

August 17, 1984

Mr. Clive Van Orden National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Dept. of Transportation 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Van Orden:

As a follow up to our conversation last week, I would like to reconfirm that NHTSA does not need to receive nor require DOT HS form 7 for engines imported by New United Motor Mfg. Inc. (NUMMI) for the purpose of new vehicle production, providing that such engines are certified at the time of entry and the Fremont plant has been granted Foreign Trade Zone status. If the above understanding is correct we would appreciate receiving a confirmation letter.

Also, please advise us if the filing of DOT HS form 7 will not be necessary for finished vehicles entered into the commerce of the United States provided such vehicles 1) are produced at the Fremont plant and 2) are in compliance at the time of delivery.

Sincerely,

Anthony Fisher. Ph.D Manager - Environmental Affairs

cc: e. Muirhead - NUMMI T. Welte - U.S. Customs

ID: 1985-01.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/04/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ron Cortez -- Marketing Director, Deco International Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Office of Chief Console N.H.T.S.A.

Dear Ms. or Mr.,

Please inform me as to the proper procedure for certifying an entirely new device that will enhance the braking features of trucks and/or passenger vehicles.

Our product, when incorporated into the vehicles braking system will allow the driver to brake the vehicle to a stop once, remove his or her foot from the brake pedal and have the vehicle remain motionless, under brake pressure, until the throttle position is advance.

This will enable the driver to accelerate from a stop on a hill without the fear of a 'roll back'.

One simply brings their vehicle to a stop, and removes their foot from the brake pedal. Our device automatically engages, holding the vehicle motionless, until the accelerator is advanced.

In that this device must be installed in conjunction with the vehicles original brake system, we are concerned as how to properly certify the device.

Mechanically the device must be spliced into the hydraulic brake system of the vehicle. Sensors are attached to the speedometer cable, at the transmission, and on the throttle linkage. Disengagement is a result of either application of the throttle and/or movement of the vehicle as detected at the speedometer cable.

Please forward any and all infomation pertaining to the certification requirements of such an 'aftermarket' device.

Thank you very much for your quick response and assistance.

Sincerely,

Ron Cordez Marketing Director

Mr. Ron Cortez Marketing Director Deco International Corporation 12612 Osborne Street Pacoima, California 91331

Dear Mr. Cortez:

This response to your letter asking about Federal requirements applicable to an aftermarket device designed to enable a driver to accelerate from a stop on a hill without the fear or a "roll back." Once the device is installed, the driver may brake the vehicle to a stop once, remove his or her foot from the brake pedal and have the vehicle remain motionless, under brake pressure, until the throttle position is advanced. According to your letter, the device must be spliced into the hydraulic brake system of the vehicle. Sensors are attached to the speedometer cable, at the transmission, and on the throttle linkage. Disengagement is a result of either application of the throttle and/or movement of the vehicle as detected at the speedometer cable.

By way of background information, the agency does not provide approvals of vehicles or equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility on the manufacturer to insure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. The following opinion is based on the information provided in your letter.

The agency does not have any regulations covering hill-hold devices designed to be attached to the braking system of a vehicle. However, since installation of your device requires cutting into a vehicle's braking system, it may affect a vehicle's compliance with other safety standards.

If your device is added to a new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. In the case of your device, this would include Safety Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.105). You will find the specific certification requirements for alterers at 49 CFR Part 567.7, Certification. On the other hand, you as the manufacturer of the device would have no certification requirements, because we have no safety standards applicable to your equipment. However, an alterer would probably require information from you in order to make the necessary certification.

If your device is installed on a used vehicle by a business such as a garage, the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard. This is required by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which states in relevant 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 item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. . . . .

Standard No. 105 includes various requirements that might be affected by installation of your device. We are not able to determine from the information provided in your letter whether compliance with the standard would be affected. We suggest that you carefully examine all of Standard No. 105's requirements to determine the degree to which installation of your device affects compliance with the standard. Requirements included in the standard include, among others, ones on stopping distance, split systems, and the ability of a baking system to withstand a series of spike stops, which might be affected by your device.

Moreover, should a safety-related defect be discovered in your device, whether by the agency or yourself, you as the manufacturer would be required under sections 151 et. seq. of the Act to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers and provide a remedy for the defect.

I have enclosed an information sheet which explains where to obtain copies of our standards and regulations.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ID: 1985-01.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/04/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Dennis Moore -- Sierra Product, Inc

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Dennis Moore Sierra Product, Inc. 1113 Greenville Road Livermore, CA 94550

This is in reply to your letter of November 26, 1984, asking whether it is permissible under Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to combine a turn signal lamp with a center high mounted stop lamp that is intended for the aftermarket as a retrofit.

As you have noted, the recent amendments to Standard No. 108 cover the center high mounted stop lamp only as an item of original equipment and do not purport to regulate the item as an aftermarket device. This means that the prohibition of paragraph S4.1.1 against combining the center high mounted stop lamp with any other lamp does not apply. The legality of such a combination, indeed, the legality of the auxiliary stop lamp itself, is determinable under the laws of any State in which a vehicle so equipped is registered and/or operated.

The sole federal restriction on use of aftermarket devices does not appear in Standard No. 108, but in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Section 108 (a)(2)(A) in essence forbids a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from rendering inoperative in whole or in part lighting equipment installed in accordance with Standard No. 108. The combination turn signal/center high mounted lamp would not appear to have this effect.

I hope that this is responsive to your request.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

SIERRA PRODUCTS inc.

In reference to selling a High Center Mount Brake Light Retro-Kit to owners of Pre 198F autos and trucks"our Company is faced with a logistics Problem that includes questions of law and the desire to put out an economical reliable product whereas millions of Americans can easily and economically retrofit their used Autos with a High Center Mount Brake Light and enjoy the safety benefits as will people buying new 1986 cars.

We feel several factors lead us to a conclusion that if a High Center Mount Brake Light were allowed to be combined with a High Turn Signal that millions more retrofits would occur because of the low retail price and greater simplicity and reliability of a typical installation

These factors are:

1. In order to avoid the Federal Requirement of S4.4.1 of Standard 108 on "Retrofit Kits" for Pre 1986 Autos in the U.S., all *"Combined Function" lighted cars must be wired in the front to the Brake Switch or use a 15 to 30 Electronic Component "Separating Circuit" to accomplish the same effect.

2. Most U.S. autos (over half of 130 million) use "combined function lights and the chance of the owners of combined function autos using a High Center Brake Light will be significantly reduced if $7 to $10 is added to the Retail Price of a Retrofit Kit which must be done presently.

3. If "combined function" light auto owners are asked to wire to the Brake Light Switch, this makes for a much more difficult installation then going just a couple of feet into the trunk area. Sales of such a Retrofit package and therefore use of High Center Mount Brake Lights will be significantly reduced.

4. For years, SAE 186 has allowed Combination of High Brake Light with a High Turn Signal and apparently has been used to some degree in the U.S. unchallenged. However, the changing of S4.4.1 now challenges the legality of SAE 186 even when applied to "add on" lighting.

5. Buyers representing auto supply distributors and mass merchandisers are very reluctant to carry different models of a High Center Mount Brake Light (one for separate function and one for combined function lights). They are apt to forget about the more expensive model which would include the electronic converter or not carry such a product at all. One universal, low priced model has a good chance of national distribution. There have been many a good product "die on the vine" in the U.S. because of lack of Distribution and this should not be one of them.

6. If a "Separating Circuit" were to be used on a large scale (as they are beginning to), they should have federal safety specifications to assure reliability to the public. Otherwise the public will be lead into a false feeling of buying something that the government has sanctioned and says helps safety only to find out they are possibly at the mercy of an "unreliable electronic black box" that breaks down because of the lack of a reliable safety specification.

Even though Federal law only requires this device in Post 1986 autos and has no law requiring retrofit lights on Pre 1986 cars, the public will indirectly hold the Federal government responsible for a failure such as this, whether they are directly responsible or not, causing hard feelings and a definite loss of credibility.

7. A High Turn Signal combined with a High Center Brake Light as permitted in SAE 186 is a desirable additional safety feature over the High Center Mount Brake Light and we feel it does not at all confuse the functions of the existing required lights (on Pre 1986 autos).

8. Even though Post 1986 autos will not have the High Center Mount Brake Light combined with any other light, we feel that our design of combining a High Center Mount Brake Light with a High Turn Signal feature must be deemed a modification that is unconsequential to Public Safety. As a matter of fact, we feel it is Consequential To Public Safety but only in a Positive way.

9. In all traffic, especially heavy traffic, it is desirable for the following traffic, both immediately behind and far behind to know when a vehicle is about to change lanes or turn off the highway. Furthermore, lanes of traffic to either side could use this information in a constructive way to avoid accidents. In essence, we subscribe to the proven fact that if a High Center Mount Brake Light is put "Where People Look" and it reduces rear end accidents by over 50%, then the other "intention light", that is the Turn Light, would have a similar savings in "lateral" accidents as they would be also "Where People Look". Even if they were not immediately construed as a Turn Signal from a far distance, it is still a signal to other vehicles that "something that could affect traffic conditions is about to happen" and is valuable information to surrounding autos.

We believe a Study in Lateral initiated accidents would show this; however, we haven't the funds or the resources for such a study.

IN CONCLUSION: We are Petitioning for a Clarification of this Point and as soon as possible as this situation may cost the American Public great sums of money unnecessarily and perhaps undermine the effectiveness of a needed product.

*"Combined Function" autos is an automobile whose Brake and Turn Light are represented by One Filament in one or more bulbs.

ID: 1985-01.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/08/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Peter Kopanon, Director, Registry of Motor Vehicles, Boston, MA

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Peter Kopanon, Director Registry of Motor Vehicles 100 Nashus Street Boston, Massachusetts 02114

This is in reply to your telephone call of August 1, 1984, requesting our opinion as to the applicability of Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, 23 CFR 1204.4, to Massachusetts.

As I understand it, your call was prompted by our letter of May 14, 1984, to Mr. Paul Pakos, in which we ruled that a vehicle with a capacity of 8 or fewer persons would be a "Type II School Vehicle" under the standard if it were used to transport students to and from school. Your question is whether Massachusetts is required by law to adhere to this aspect of the standard.

Standard 17 is among the standards issued by this agency under authority of the Highway Safety Act of 1966, as amended, 23 U.S.C. 401-408. The Act provides that the States are to administer their highway safety programs in accordance with the standards. However, it also gives us the discretion not to insist that a State comply with every standard. We have employed this discretion to administer the highway safety program on the basis of mutual cooperation rather than by rigid enforcement of the standards.

In the case of Standard 17, we have worked with Massachusetts and all other States to improve the overall quality of pupil transportation, in keeping with the intent of the Standard. The results of our mutual efforts can be seen in the marked decline in serious school bus accidents during the last ten years. We intend to continue to follow this cooperative policy.

Let me know if you have further questions.

Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 1985-01.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/08/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Le Olin Chamberlain

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Le Olin Chamberlain 226 N. Williamson Road Blossburg, PA 16912

This responds to your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) which concerned the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards relating to school bus safety. You asked whether a school bus contractor is automatically exempt from the Federal school bus safety standards if that contractor is a Public Utilities Commission (PUC) certificate carrier. The answer is no.

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (hereinafter "the Vehicle Safety Act"), our agency has the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles. In 1974, Congress amended the Vehicle Safety Act to direct NHTSA to issue standards on specific aspects of school bus safety. A new "bus" (i.e., a motor vehicle designed for carrying 11 persons or more) which is sold for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or school-related events is a "school bus" under our regulatory definition. A manufacturer or dealer who sells a new bus who knows that the vehicle will be significantly used as a school bus must ensure that the vehicle complies with the Federal school bus safety standards.

You stated in your letter that a school bus contractor has notified your school district that "under his PUC rights he is exempt from Federal Safety Regulations." For the reasons discussed below, such a statement is inaccurate. Buses purchased by a PUC certificate carrier are not per se exempt from the Federal school bus safety standards.

It is correct that the regulatory definition of "school bus" issued by this agency under the Vehicle Safety Act excludes a bus "designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation." (49 CFR 571.3) However, the exclusion does not give persons who sell new buses to common carrier operators the license to disregard the school bus safety standards when they sell the buses. This is because the applicability of the standards to a bus is determined by its intended use, not by the fact that the purchaser has common carrier operations or holds a PUC certificate. Whether a particular bus must comply with the school bus safety standards depends on the intended use of that bus, as determined at the point of the vehicle's sale. If the seller of the school bus knows that the vehicle will be significantly used by the PUC carrier as a school bus, he must sell a bus that complies with the Federal school bus standards or be subject to substantial penalties under the Vehicle Safety Act.

Please contact this office if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Sept. 5, 1984

Dear Mr. Berndt,

I talked with Mr. David Soul today in connection with a particular problem concerning van transportation in my school district. Mr. Soul asked that I place this particular question in writing and direct it to you for opinion.

August 1, 1984, my school district advertised to the local school bus contractors for price per mile bids for extra-curricular activity transportation, which includes the sports program. I submitted a bid for van transportation, at my local high school specifying ten passenger capacity maximum, and was awarded the bid.

Now, another contractor, in the school district whom is also a PUC certificate carrier, has notified school officials that I am running illegal because I don't have PUC rights for vans and he will supply the vans for school use under his charter PUC rights and that they can use his 15 passenger vans because under PUC he is exempt from Federal Safety Regulations. Consequently, now the school is using one 15 passenger van 6 days a week for football practice and their Sat. games. This is a school sport, funded by the school district, general fund account, billing approved and paid on a monthly basis by the district board of directors.

Specific question is:

Would a PUC carrier be exempt Federal Safety Regulations for this sport program and be allowed to use 15 passenger vans for transportation on a everyday basis for the duration of the particular sport season? Van is a paratransit vehicle, BA bus plate, and does not conform to type A or B school bus standard.

Note: 1st day- 13 passengers & driver, 2nd day- 18 passengers & driver, 3rd day, 10 passengers & driver.

Your opinion in this question will be greatly appreciated. Also, could you supply me with any updates on rulings concerning van transportation.

Sincerely,

Le Olin Chamberlain 226 N. Williamson Road Blossburg, Pa. 16912

ID: 1985-02.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/20/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Jim Preisler -- Senior Vice President, Drag Specialties

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Jim Preisler Senior Vice President Drag Specialties P.O. Box 9336 Minneapolis, MN 55440

This responds to your letter of January 17, 1985, concerning Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. Your company manufactures an aftermarket replacement motorcycle windscreen, which incorporates auxiliary wind deflectors. Standard No. 205 specifies that the upper portion of the windshield can be made out of item 1, 6, 10, or 11 glazing materials. The glazing used in the auxiliary wind deflectors can be made out of item 1, 2, 4, 10, or 11A glazing materials. You said that the glazing material used in the windscreen and deflector meets the requirements for both item 4 and 6 glazing materials. You asked whether you can mark both those components as item 4/6 glazing materials. The answer is that you can mark them as item 4/6 materials.

Section S6 of the standard sets out the certification and marking requirements for each item of glazing material. It provides that each piece of glazing material shall be marked, in accordance with section 6 of American National Standard "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways" Z-26.1 - 1977, January 26, 1977, as supplemented by Z26.1a, July 3, 1980, with a number signifying that it meets the performance requirement set for that particular glazing item number. In your case, the glazing material meets all for the requirements set for two separate item numbers. Since your product conforms to the requirements for both items 4 and 6 the agency has no objection to marking the components with both item numbers.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 400 7th St. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Mr. Frank Berndt, Chief of Council January 17, 1985

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I was referred to your office by Mr. Steven Oesch for assistance with my request.

My company is manufacturing an aftermarket replacement motorcycle windscreen. We applied for and were assigned manufacturer's code number 353, as specified in FMVSS No. 205. The material of the windscreen must meet Item #6 of the American National Standard Z26.1 1983. Our windscreen incorporates auxiliary wind deflectors (2) as part of its design. The deflector material must meet Item #4 of the same standard.

The material we are specifying for the windscreen and the deflectors meets both Items #4 and #6. I am requesting permission to mark both devices as 4/6. The reason for my request is based on cost savings. Each hot stamp die to mark the devices can be $500 to $1000 each.

Please advise me as soon as possible as our production date is closing in on us.

Sincerely,

Jim Preisler Senior Vice President

ID: 1985-02.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/08/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Herbert Kramer -- Acting Supreme Court Justice

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

The Honorable Herbert Kramer Acting Supreme Court Justice Justices' Chambers 360 Adams Street Brooklyn, NY 11201

Thank you for your letter of March 14, 1985, concerning a case pending before you that involves tinted side windows in a 1980 BMW. You asked us to provide you with information concerning the marking that appeared on the windows. I hope the following discussion of our glazing standard and the significance of the window markings is of assistance to you.

NHTSA has the authority, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, (15 U.S.C. 1391 et seq.), to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles. We have issued Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which sets performance and other requirements for different items of glazing used in new motor vehicles. (I have enclosed a copy of the standard that was in effect for 1980 model year cars. Also enclosed is the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard No. Z-26 incorporated by reference in Standard No. 205).

The standard requires that glazing used in locations requisite for driving visibility have a luminous transmittance of 70 percent. The agency has considered all windows in a passenger car requisite for driving visibility. Thus, the side windows of a new 1980 BMW imported into the U.S. would have had to comply with the 70 percent luminous transmittance requirement.

Section S6 of Standard No. 205 requires glazing to have four items of identifying information on it. The four items are: a manufacturer's identification code assigned by our agency, the model number of the glazing assigned by the glazing manufacturer, the manufacturer's trademark or distinctive designation and an "AS" number indicating that it meets all of the performance requirements set for that glazing item number.

The markings you provided us from the aide windows of a 1980 BMW indicate the following. The marking "DOT 25" and "DOT 28 are code numbers assigned by this agency to prime glazing manufacturers. DOT 25 is the code number assigned to Flachglas AG of Bayern, Federal Republic of Germany. DOT 28 is the code number assigned to Vereinigte Glaswerke of Porz, Federal Republic of Germany. The markings "M202" and "MIOZ" (based on our experience with manufacturer's model number, we believe that "MIOZ" is a transcription error and should read "M012") are model numbers assigned by the glazing manufacturers. The markings "AS 2" signify that the glazing meets the requirement set in ANSI Z-26 for AS 2 glazing materials. The requirements for AS 2 glazing materials include a requirement in section 4.2 of ANSI Z-26 that AS 2 glazing meet the 70 percent luminous transmittance test of section 5.2. we believe the marking "Delodur - 1F Liz Sekurit" and "Duro-Glas 1F Liz Sekurit" are the trademarks or other distinctive designations assigned by the manufacturers. We do not know what the markings "BS 5282T", "0-295" and MD-291" represent, but we believe the latter two represent European manufacturer identification codes.

I hope this information is of assistance to you. If you have further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

March 14, 1985

Department of Transportation 400-7th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Gentlemen:

There is a case presently before me concerning tinted side windows on a BMW 1980 automobile. Certain information was gathered from these windows and it is necessary for me to determine its significance, if any, with respect to the transmittance of light in accordance with the Vehicle & Traffic Law, section 375.

Please give me any pertinent information regarding the following data:

DOT 25 M202 AS 2 DELODUR - IF BS 5282T LIZ SEKURIT D-295

DOT 28 MIOZ AS 2 DURO-GLAS - IF LIZ SEKURIT MD 291 Thank you for your kind assistance in this matter. Very truly yours,

ID: 1985-02.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/08/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Troy C. Martin

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Troy C. Martin Specifications Chief State Purchasing and General Services Commission P.0. Box 13047 Capitol Station Lyndon Baines Johnson State Office Building Austin, Texas 78711-3047

Dear Mr. Martin:

This responds to your January 24, 1985 letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) asking about our school bus-safety standards.

Your first question asked whether a bus manufactured to accommodate 7 passengers and 3 wheelchair positions and to be used for carrying students would be classified as a school bus. The answer to your question is yes. Whether a vehicle is a school bus depends on the seating capacity of the vehicle. NHTSA determines the seating capacity of a motor vehicle by identifying the number of designated seating positions, as defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3, in the vehicle. "Designated seating position" is defined as:

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

Consistent with this definition, we have also counted positions designed to accommodate wheelchairs in determining vehicle seating capacity for the determination of vehicle classification. Since your vehicle carries 10 passengers plus a driver, for a total of 11 persons, it is a school bus under Part 571.3 of our regulations.

The second part of this question asked whether this vehicle would be required to comply with the seating requirements of FMVSS No. 222. The answer is yes. Each new school bus must comply with all applicable requirements of Standard No. 222. Some different requirements apply to school buses having gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less, than to school buses with GVWR's greater than 10,000 pounds. For example, the seat spacing requirements of Standard No. 222 do not apply to the lighter school buses, since these vehicles are required to have safety belts.

Your second question asked whether a vehicle manufactured to carry 9 student passengers would be classified as a school bus. The answer is no. Such a vehicle does not have the passenger capacity of a bus, and is thus not a school bus. Although the school bus safety standards would not apply to this vehicle, it would have to meet the standards set for a multipurpose passenger vehicle.

Your third and fourth questions concerned side facing seats for handicapped passengers. You first asked whether seat barriers must be placed forward and rearward of a side facing seat, when the seat is positioned between rows of forward facing seats.

I assume that you are concerned with buses having GVWR's greater than 10,000 pounds, since the seat spacing requirements of S5.2 of Standard No. 222 apply only to these heavier school buses. In a preamble to a July 12, 1976, Federal Register notice (41 FR 28506), the agency determined that the seat spacing requirements of S5.2 are not appropriate for side facing seats designed to accommodate handicapped or convalescent passengers. Therefore, a restraining barrier is not required forward of a side facing seat. However, a restraining barrier must be provided rearward of any side facing seat that has a forward facing seat next to it, in order to compartmentalize the passengers in the forward facing seat.

Your fourth question assumed that S5.2 applied to side facing seats. You asked whether the back of a forward facing seat positioned in front of a side facing seat could be used to meet the barrier requirements of S5.2. As discussed above, S5.2 does not apply to side facing seats.

Your fifth question asked whether safety belts are required for side facing seats on school buses with GVWR's of 10,000 pounds or less, and on school buses with GVWR' s greater than 10,000 pounds. For school buses with GVWR's of 10,000 pounds or less, Standard No. 222 requires that the applicable specifications of Standard Nos. 208, 209, and 210, be met "at all seating positions other than the driver's seat." Thus each seating position in a small school bus must have a safety belt and anchorages that comply with the applicable requirements of those standards. Side facing seats on the heavier school buses are not required to have safety belts.

Your sixth question asked if we have information on the use of shoulder straps and harnesses with lap belts for passenger seats on school buses. NHTSA has not conducted any tests on the use of shoulder straps or harnesses with safety belts on school buses. You might want to contact school bus manufacturers to discuss how 3-point belt systems can be used in school buses.

Your last question asked whether NHTSA has any plans at the present to delete the safety belt requirements for school buses with GVWR's of 10,000 pounds or less. Although NHTSA has no present plans to delete the safety belt requirement for the lighter school buses, the agency is presently reviewing the Canadian test data to which you referred in your letter. If we believe there is a need to propose to amend Standard No. 222, the public will have an opportunity to submit comments.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Mr. Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street SW Room 5219 Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt,

In a conversation on January 22, 1985 with Ms. Deirdre Hom of your staff, she suggested that I formally submit the following questions to you concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

My questions are:

1. If a school bus manufacturer installs on a school bus normally designed or capable of holding 15 passengers, three wheel chair positions and sufficient school bus passenger seating for an additional seven passengers, will the resulting vehicle

a) be defined as a school bus (i.e. it can carry a total of 10 passengers, exclusive of the driver),

b) be required to comply with the seating requirements or FMVSS No. 222?

2. If the above bug had only space for six additional passengers (for a total of 9), would the resulting vehicle be classified as a school bus and be required to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 222 for seating?

3. Must seat barriers be placed forward and rearward or a side facing seat on a school bus used to transport handicapped students if the side facing seat is positioned between rear of regular school bus passenger seats?

4. Would the back of a regular passenger seat, properly constructed and positioned ahead of the side facing seat, meet the requirement?

5. Would seat belts be required for occupants of the side facing seat if the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) or the vehicle were a) 10,000 pounds or less, or b) greater than 10,000 GVWR?

6. Do you know of any tests or do you have any information on the use of shoulder straps or harness used in conjunction with seat belts for regular passenger seating on either small (10,000 GVWR or less) or larger school buses?

7. Preliminary reports of recent Canadian tests indicate for small school buses, that "the heads of all restrained dummies experienced forces that were judged to be life threatening or fatal" in frontal crashes with belted dummies, while the heads of all unbelted dummies "experienced forces below the limit that is judged to cause serious injury or death". Since these preliminary results indicate that the use of seat belts in all school buses would possibly cause more injuries than the absence of belts, thereby verifying the "compartmental" concept that NHTSA has held, does NHTSA have any plans at present to delete the seat belt requirements on school buses with GVWR's of 10,000 pounds or less?

Thank you for your consideration of these questions.

Sincerely yours,

Troy C. Martin, Chief Specification Section 512 - 475-2232

TCM/tgf

cc: Herb Gersbach

ID: 1985-02.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/10/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Lynn R. Metzger

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Lynn R. Metzger President Mid Bus Inc. P.O. Box 1985 Lima, Ohio 45802

Dear Mr. Metzger:

This responds to your February 22, 1985 letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requesting clarification of this agency's definition of a bus. A "bus" is defined in the definitions section of our motor vehicle safety standards (49 CFR 571.3) as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons." You asked whether a vehicle's classification under our regulations is based on the seating capacity of the vehicle as designed, which may vary, or the actual seating capacity of the vehicle as manufactured.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires manufacturers to certify that their vehicles, as manufactured, comply with our safety standards. Thus, the agency uses the actual seating capacity of the vehicle as manufactured to determine the classification of the vehicle. NHTSA determines the seating capacity of a motor vehicle by identifying the number of designated seating positions in the vehicle. "Designated seating position" is defined in S571.3 as "any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design and vehicle design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats...." Consistent with this definition, we have also counted positions designed to accommodate wheelchairs in determining vehicle seating capacity for the determination of vehicle classification. Under our regulations, a vehicle having a total of more than 10 designated seating positions and wheelchair positions is a bus and a vehicle having a total of 10 or less positions is either a passenger car or a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV).

You asked why you are not permitted to build a 6 passenger MPV exactly as you manufacture a school bus. As a MPV, your vehicle must be certified as meeting all of the standards applicable to that vehicle type. You may also voluntarily manufacture the vehicle in compliance with the requirements of our school bus safety standards, as long as the vehicle continues to comply with our standards for MPV's.

A final rule was recently published in the Federal Register (50 FR 12029; March 27, 1985) amending Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components, to exclude doors equipped with wheelchair lifts and audible or visual alarms from the requirements of the Standard. Since you expressed an interest in that amendment, I have enclosed a copy of the final rule for your information.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosure

February 22, 1985

Ms. Diedre Hom U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 400 Seventh Street SW Washington. D. C. 20590

Dear Ms. Hom:

Thank you for discussing the 10 passenger school bus vs. multipurpose vehicle situation. As was mentioned, Mid Bus feels the regulation stating "A vehicle which is designed to carry...." is the key to this situation. We believe design means the actual capacity the body can hold. In the case of Mid Bus van, our unit is designed to carry 16 passenger. It can, at the request of a customer, be built to carry less than 10 passengers for purpose of transporting wheelchair passengers. The design of the vehicle has not changed, just the carrying capacity.

You will find enclosed floor plan showing Mid Bus units with capacities 16, 15, 10, and 6. The design of the six passenger unit is still a 16-passenger unit. It is built to carry 6.

From a liability stand point, we feel more secure building a 6 passenger vehicle exactly like we do a 16 passenger. Logically, why should people be afforded less protection going to and from school because the bus is under ten passengers?

As further discussed, we are aware of the multi-purpose vehicle specifications. You mentioned the petition for exemption from the door lock specs for vehicles with lift doors with buzzers. We feel this exemption would help, but it really attacks the problem from the back door.

Continued..........

We prefer to build school buses even if the build capacity falls below 10. Clarification of the statement "designed to" is requested. One suggestions would be an identification plate stating:

Design Capacity 16 Seating Capacity 9

In this example, the manufacturer states what the unit is designed for and also the capacity to which it is built.

Your time on the phone is appreciated and we request further review of our position.

Cordially,

Lynn R. Metzger, President

LRM:pas

CC: Frank Berndt - Chief Counsel U. S. Dept. of Transportation

ID: 1985-02.13

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 11, 1985

FROM: A. Ruiz Thiery -- President, Companhia Nacional de Borrachas, S.A.R.L.; Herminio Pereira -- Managing Director, Companhia Nacional de Borrachas, S.A.R.L.

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: None

TEXT:

We hereby designate and appoint the undermentioned corporation as our agent on whom service of all processes, notices, orders, decisions and requirements may be made for us and on our behalf as provided in section 110 (e) of the National Traffic and Motor Safety Act 1966 (80 stat. 718)

INTERSCEPTRE TYRES INC.

6830 Roswell Road Suite 1-A ATLANTA, GA 30328.

This designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by ourselves.

Our full legal name is CNB - COMPANHIA NACIONAL DE BORRACHAS, SARL., and our mailing address and principal place of business is RUA AZEVEDO COUTINHO, 39-1, 4100 PORTO, PORTUGAL.

Our products bear the brand "CAMAC".

We, the undersigned, certify that this designation is legally valid in form and binding under the laws of Portugal, our corporate by-laws and all other requirements covering the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made.

We declare acceptance of the above designation for and on behalf of INTERSCEPTRE TYRES INC.

J. Holt (President)