ID: nht92-4.13

DATE: 09/09/92

FROM: G. THOMAS OWENS, -- SENIOR ENGINEERING REPRESENTATIVE, AETNA

TO: THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNCIL -- NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY COUNCIL

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-03-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO G. THOMAS OWENS (A40; PART 571.3)

TEXT: As a safety professional, I am interested in current information regarding school bus safety. Would it be possible to obtain information regarding the legal aspects of school bus safety standards from the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration? The type of information I am seeking includes a book or pamphlet containing applicable standards. If there is a cost associated with this material, please forward a list of the reference material with the associated costs. Thank you for taking the time to attend to this request.

ID: nht92-4.14

DATE: September 8, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Scott D. Boone -- Van Conversions, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to 01/01/92 (EST) letter from Scott Boone to Office of the Chief Counsel (OCC-7721)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of September 4, 1992 requesting information on standards applicable to vans you manufacture for use by day care centers. These vehicles have a 21 passenger capacity. During a September 16 phone conversation between Mary Versailles of my staff and Mr. George Croft of Van conversions, Inc., Mr. Croft indicated that your company purchases incomplete vehicles manufactured by Ford (the E-250 chassis) and completes them into finished vehicles, by such operations as installing seats and seat belts. According to Mr. Croft, the completed vehicles have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of less than 10,000 pounds. Mr. Croft stated that your company was particularly interested in new requirements for lap/shoulder belts. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations to you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

Your company would be considered a final-stage manufacturer under our regulations. As a final stage manufacturer, your company's certification responsibilities would depend on the information provided by the manufacturer of the incomplete vehicle. Under 49 CFR Part 568, the incomplete vehicle manufacturer must furnish your company with a document which states one of the following three things concerning the incomplete vehicle, for each of the safety standards:

1. The vehicle when completed will conform to the safety standard if no alterations are made to any identified components of the incomplete vehicle.

2. The vehicle when completed will conform to the safety standard if specific conditions are followed by the final-stage manufacturer.

3. Conformity with the safety standard is not substantially affected by the design of the incomplete vehicle, so the incomplete vehicle manufacturer makes no representation as to conformity with the standard.

Your company, as the final stage manufacturer, is required to certify that each vehicle you complete complies with all applicable safety standards. Such certifications may be based entirely upon the incomplete vehicle manufacturer's instructions and advice set forth in the document furnished with the incomplete vehicle.

The 21 passenger vehicles your company manufactures would be considered "buses" under NHTSA regulations. NHTSA defines a "bus" as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons." (49 CFR 571.3). In addition, your 21 passenger vehicles might be considered "school buses" if the day care center to which you sell the vehicle would be considered a school. A day care center would be considered a school if the function of the facility was primarily educational, rather than custodial. A "school bus" is defined as "a bus that is sold, or introduced in interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, but does not include a bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation."

With respect to seat belts, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires a bus, other than a school bus, with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less to have a lap/shoulder belt at every outboard seating position, and either a lap belt or a lap/shoulder belt at every other seating position. Standard No. 208 requires a school bus with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less to have a lap/shoulder belt at the driver's and right front passenger's seating positions, and either a lap belt or a lap/shoulder belt at every other seating position.

I am enclosing two publications for your information. The document titled "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations" will provide you with a summary description of the requirements of each standard, and a list of the types of vehicles to which each standard applies. The other document is a general information sheet for manufacturers which highlights the relevant Federal statutes and regulations, and explains how to obtain copies of the regulations.

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: nht92-4.15

DATE: September 4, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Peter E. Reinert -- Counsel - Transaction, General Electric Company

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/24/92 from Peter E. Reinert to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC-7436)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR S571.205. Specifically, you asked about the certification and marking responsibilities of your company, General Electric (GE), and your distributors under section S6 of Standard No. 205. This interpretation is based on my understanding of the statements in your letter as well as statements made by GE's representatives Mr. Timothy Commons and Mr. Bruce Torry in a July 8, 1992 meeting with Mr. Clark Harper of this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Standards and Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff.

We understand that GE manufactures large sheets of LEXAN polycarbonate which are used in both motor vehicle and non-vehicle applications. You explained that under a contractual agreement with GE, your distributors have agreed to mark the LEXAN sheet with GE's manufacturer code mark and the symbol DOT (which you refer to as the DOT number). In other words, GE is sending LEXAN sheets without the manufacturer code mark and the symbol DOT to its distributors who then mark the sheets with this information before shipping them to their motor vehicle customers.

You asked whether shipping LEXAN sheets without the manufacturer code mark and symbol DOT to GE's distributors is consistent with GE's responsibilities as a prime glazing material manufacturer having its own DOT number. I note that Mr. Commons and Mr. Torry raised additional questions about GE's certification responsibilities under Standard No. 205. Specifically, they questioned whether GE was a manufacturer of raw material rather than a prime glazing material manufacturer; and if GE were not a prime glazing material manufacturer, whether each of GE's distributors would be required to mark the LEXAN sheets with its own DOT number rather than GE's number. Your company's questions are addressed below.

Standard No. 205 specifies performance requirements for glazing for use in motor vehicles. Section S6 of Standard No. 205 establishes marking and certification requirements for manufacturers and distributors of glazing materials. Different marking and certification requirements apply depending upon whether an entity is a prime glazing material manufacturer or a manufacturer that cuts sections of glazing material to which Standard No. 205 applies. Further distinction in certification requirements for prime manufacturers depends on whether the glazing is designed for use in a specific motor vehicle or camper, or whether the glazing is designed to be cut into components for use in motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. None of the marking and certification requirements would apply to manufacturers of raw materials.

Section S6.1 defines a "prime glazing material manufacturer" as "one who

fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material." If an entity performs any one of these operations, it must comply with the marking and certification requirements set forth in S6.1 through S6.3 of Standard No. 205.

Before addressing the question posed in your letter, I will respond to your representatives' question concerning whether GE might be a manufacturer of a raw material and thus not be subject to Standard No. 205's marking and certification requirements. In support of this view, they stated that distributors frequently undertake what they termed significant fabricating operations (e.g., drilling, routing, and polishing the glazing) beyond merely cutting the glazing, and thus in such situations should be considered the "prime glazing material manufacturer."

Notwithstanding your representatives' contentions, we consider GE to be the prime glazing material manufacturer in the situation at hand. GE's activities involve a fundamental manufacturing operation that constitutes fabrication of glazing. In contrast, the distributor's operations, though arguably more extensive than mere cutting, constitute relatively minor finishing operations to an item of glazing that has been fabricated by another company. Since GE fabricates the glazing, it is the prime glazing material manufacturer under S6.1. This determination renders moot your representatives' follow-up question about the distributor's marking responsibilities if GE were not a prime glazing material manufacturer.

I will now summarize the marking and certification requirements that apply to GE, as a prime glazing material manufacturer, and to its distributors. S6.1 requires every prime glazing material manufacturer to mark all glazing materials it manufactures with the following information in accordance with section 6 of the American National Standard (ANS) Z26: (1) the words "American National Standard" or the characters "AS," (2) a number identifying the item of glazing, (3) a model number assigned by the manufacturer that identifies the type of construction of the glazing material, and (4) the manufacturer's distinctive designation or trademark.

In addition to the information required by S6.1, if an item of glazing material is designed to be used in a specific motor vehicle, then S6.2 requires each prime glazing material manufacturer to certify such an item of glazing with the symbol "DOT" and a manufacturer's code mark assigned by this agency. The purpose of requiring the manufacturer's code mark is to help NHTSA identify the actual manufacturer of the glazing material for the purpose of defect and noncompliance recall campaigns. Section S6.3 requires each prime glazing material manufacturer to certify compliance with Standard No. 205 for each piece of glazing designed to be cut into components for use in motor vehicles pursuant to the requirements of section 114 of the Safety Act. Under section 114, certification of an item of glazing "may be in the form of a label or tag on such item or on the outside of a container in which such item is delivered."

Sections S6.4 and S6.5 set forth requirements that apply to each manufacturer or distributor who cuts a section of glazing material to which Standard No. 205 applies for use in a motor vehicle or camper. Section S6.4 requires the manufacturer or distributor to mark that material in accordance with section 6 of ANS Z26. Section S6.5 requires the manufacturer or distributor to certify that its product complies with Standard No. 205, pursuant to section 114.

You asked whether shipping LEXAN sheets without GE's manufacturer code mark and the symbol DOT to GE's distributors is consistent with GE's responsibilities as a prime glazing material manufacturer that has its own DOT number. Under the above requirements, the only type of glazing that a prime glazing material manufacturer is required to mark with its manufacturer code mark and the symbol "DOT" is glazing designed as a component of a specific motor vehicle or camper. GE, as a prime glazing material manufacturer, is not required to mark glazing with the symbol "DOT" and its manufacturer's code mark if such glazing is not designed as a component of a specific motor vehicle or camper.

As for sheets of glazing that a manufacturer or distributor will cut into components for motor vehicles, GE and GE's distributors may contractually agree to have the distributor mark the LEXAN sheets and glazing cut from such sheets with GE's manufacturer code mark. However, there is no requirement for either GE or its distributors to so mark the glazing.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Enclosure

ID: nht92-4.16

DATE: September 4, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Bob Bullard

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to 7/1/92 (EST) letter from Bob Bullard to Walter Myers (OCC-7571)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to me, received on July 8, 1992, and your letter to Mr. Walter Myers of my staff received on July 28, 1992. Both letters concerned the installation of used tires as original equipment on new utility trailers.

Your second letter, more detailed than the first, referenced your telephone conversation with Mr. Myers of July 20, 1992 and asserted that of the more than 200,000 utility trailers manufactured annually, approximately 185,000 are shipped to dealers mounted with used tires. You expressed concern that with used tires installed, the rated load weight of those trailers would be inaccurate, and that used tires could fail, resulting in serious accidents. You also expressed concern that our regulation on the subject, 49 CFR S571.120, S5.1.3, is not widely known to trailer manufacturers and dealers or, if they do know about it, they do not fully understand it. You requested a simplified interpretation of the regulation, spelling out what manufacturers and dealers can and cannot do. You also asked about penalties for violation and who should be contacted for enforcement.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. S1381 et seq. (Safety Act), gives the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) the authority to prescribe safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a) (1)(A) of the Act provides that no person may "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that does not conform with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Violations of Safety Act provisions are punishable by civil fines of up to $1,000 per violation, with a maximum fine of $800,000 for a related series of violations.

Trailers are classified as motor vehicles under the terms of the Safety Act, and tires are classified as motor vehicle equipment. Both, therefore, are subject to our Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

S5.1.1 of safety Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles other Than Passenger Cars (copy enclosed), provides that, except as provided in S5.1.3, each vehicle equipped with pneumatic tires for highway service must be equipped with tires that meet the requirements of Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires--Passenger Cars, or Safety Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. Therefore, unless a new trailer with tires comes within the exception set forth in S5.1.3, it must be equipped with new tires that are certified to comply with Standard No. 109 or Standard No. 119. S5.1.3 reads as follows:

In place of tires that meet the requirements of Standard 119, a truck, bus, or trailer may at the request of a purchaser be equipped at the place of manufacture of the vehicle with retreaded or used tires owned or leased by the purchaser, if the sum of the maximum load ratings meets the requirements of S5.1.2. Used tires employed under this provision must have been originally manufactured to comply with Standard 119, as evidenced by the DOT symbol.

What this means is that the following five conditions must be met for a trailer manufacturer to install retreaded or used tires on a new trailer (or for a dealer to sell a new trailer equipped with retreaded or used tires):

1. The purchaser must request such retreaded or used tires;

2. The used or retreaded tires must be installed at the trailer's place of manufacture;

3. The used or retreaded tires to be installed must be owned or leased by the purchaser;

4. The sum of the maximum load ratings of the used or retreaded tires on each axle must be not less than the gross axle weight rating of that axle (required by S5.1.2); and

5. Used tires installed on the vehicle must have been originally manufactured to comply with Standard No. 119 and contain the DOT certification symbol on the sidewalls.

The exception set forth in S5.1.3 accommodates a longstanding and widespread practice in which fleet operators send tires from their tire banks to vehicle manufacturers for installation on the new vehicles that they buy. A tire bank is composed of tires with usable tread left on them which have been removed from vehicles no longer in service.

NHTSA's Office of Enforcement has responsibility for enforcing the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If you wish to report possible noncompliances with Standard No. 120, you may contact Mr. Robert Hellmuth, Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, Office of Enforcement, at this address.

I hope this information will be helpful to you. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Mr. Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

(Enclosure omitted)

ID: nht92-4.17

DATE: September 4, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Bill Traylor -- Waste Processing Equipment, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/14/92 from Bill Traylor to Office of Chief Council, NHTSA (OCC-7544)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of July 14, 1992, concerning certification of the trucks you are constructing on WCA Series Volvo GMC Class 8 truck chassis. As I understand it, you are planning to install your own coach body on the standard chassis purchased from Volvo.

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. As you are aware, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381, et seq., "the Safety Act") to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we "certify" individual manufacturers. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. In addition, each manufacturer is required to notify NHTSA of the types of vehicles it is constructing.

Waste Processing Equipment, Inc. is considered a final-stage manufacturer under 49 CFR S568.3 because it "performs such manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a completed vehicle." In other words, when your company purchases a standard chassis from Volvo, i.e., an incomplete vehicle, it upgrades the chassis to a completed vehicle, i.e., one which requires no further manufacturing operations to perform its intended function (other than adding readily attachable parts such as mirrors or minor operations such as painting).

As a final-stage manufacturer, under 49 CFR S568.6, Waste Processing Equipment must complete each vehicle in such a manner that it conforms to all relevant federal standards, and then must affix a label to the vehicle according to the requirements of 49 CFR S567.5. Your precise certification responsibilities would be dependent on the information provided by the manufacturer of the incomplete vehicle. Under 49 CFR Part 568, the incomplete vehicle manufacturer must furnish your company with a document which states one of the following three things concerning the incomplete vehicle:

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

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

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

I have enclosed sections 567 and 568 for your convenience.

This means that, if your company completes these vehicles in accordance with the specifications Volvo GMC furnishes with the chassis, your certification of the completed vehicle may be based entirely upon Volvo GMC's specifications. However, if the Volvo GMC chassis does not include specifications for all safety standards or if your company chooses to complete the vehicle outside of the specifications provided by Volvo GMC, your company would be responsible for the certification of the completed vehicle. Accordingly, you should review the Volvo GMC specifications to see if you can complete the vehicle in accordance with those specifications.

As a general matter, final-stage manufacturers are also responsible for notification and remedy of defects related to motor vehicle safety and items not in compliance with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, as specified in the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1411-1420), and are subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Reports. In addition, each manufacturer is responsible for furnishing to NHTSA information regarding vehicles they manufacture under 49 CFR Part 566, a copy of which is enclosed.

I am also enclosing a general information sheet for manufacturers of new vehicles. This sheet highlights the relevant Federal statutes and regulations and explains how to obtain copies of the regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact David Elias of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-4.18

DATE: September 4, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Kevin B. Brown -- EG&G Idaho, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/6/92 from Kevin B. Brown to NHTSA (OCC-7323)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter concerning 49 CFR 567 requirements for intermediate or final stage manufacture vehicle labeling. I apologize for the delay in responding. You stated in your letter that EG&G Idaho, as prime contractor for the Department of Energy, Idaho Field Office, procures and maintains all government-owned vehicles, and occasionally procures truck chassis purchased through the General Services Administration for subsequent mounting of service bodies.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Before addressing the specific issues raised in the letter, some background information may be helpful. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, 15 U.S.C., S1381-1431 (hereinafter "Safety Act") authorizes this agency to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Rather, the Safety Act establishes a self-certification process which requires each manufacturer, in the exercise of due care, to ensure and certify that its products meet all applicable Federal safety standards. Thereafter, NHTSA periodically tests vehicles and equipment for compliance with the standards and investigates allegations of safety-related defects.

In addition, the Safety Act only requires new vehicles to comply with applicable safety standards. The only provision of the Safety Act that would apply after the first purchase of a vehicle is 15 U.S.C. S1397(a)(2)(A), which states in relevant part that:

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 ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

The first question to be answered is whether EG&G Idaho is a manufacturer. Under 49 CFR 568.3, a final-stage manufacturer is "a person who performs such manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a completed vehicle." An incomplete vehicle is "an assemblage consisting, as a minimum, of frame and chassis structure..." that requires "further manufacturing operations, other than the addition of readily attachable components... ." Readily attachable components include items such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies. Service bodies are not "readily attachable components." Therefore, in installing service bodies on new chassis, EG&G is acting as a final-stage manufacturer under federal regulations.

49 CFR 586.6 establishes certain requirements for final-stage manufacturers,

including:

(a) Each final-stage manufacturer shall complete the vehicle in such a manner that it conforms to the standards in effect on the date of the manufacture of the incomplete vehicle, the date of final completion, or a date between those two dates. ... (b) Each final-stage manufacturer shall affix a label to the completed vehicle in accordance with S567.5 of this chapter.

EG&G must attach the proper label to the completed vehicle as set out in 49 CFR 567.5(c), a copy of which is enclosed for your convenience. According to your letter, EG&G mounts bodies in accordance with the original (i.e., incomplete) manufacturer's instructions or recommendations. In that case, EG&G's certification that the completed vehicle conforms to all applicable safety standards can state simply that the vehicle has been completed in accordance with the prior manufacturer's instructions, per S567.5(c)(7).

When EG&G mounts a new body on a new chassis, the resulting vehicle is subject to the Safety Act and the certification requirements of 49 CFR 567 and 568. However, according to your letter, you also mount bodies on "existing used" chassis. 49 CFR 571.7(e) deals with combining new and used components:

When a new cab is used in the assembly of a truck, the truck will be considered newly manufactured for purposes of paragraph (a) of this section (stating that safety standards apply to all relevant motor vehicles), the application of the requirements of this chapter, and the (Safety) Act, unless the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) (as a minimum) of the assembled vehicle are not new, and at least two of these components were taken from the same vehicle.

This means that the vehicle resulting from placing a new body upon a used chassis is a used vehicle. If, in addition to adding a new body, the operation also modifies the chassis by adding new components, such as new engine, transmission, suspension, etc., it is more likely that the resulting vehicle would be considered a new vehicle. If your vehicles produced with "existing used chassis" will incorporate the engine, transmission, and drive axle from the existing used chassis, the completed vehicles would be "used" and would not require vehicle certification. Some of our standards, however, apply to individual items of motor vehicle equipment (e.g., brake hoses and fluids, lighting equipment, tires, seatbelt assemblies, glazing). If your converted vehicles incorporate new items of these types of equipment, the items must comply with the applicable Federal safety standards. For example, lights are subject to requirements specified in Standard No. 108, and glazing is subject to requirements specified in Standard No. 205.

Finally, you ask whether "EG&G Idaho need(s) to be certificated... ." There is no procedure to certify any manufacturer. It is the manufacturer that must certify that its vehicles meet the applicable federal safety standards. However, you should submit the manufacturer's information required by 49 CFR 566 to NHTSA. This information includes the name and address of the manufacturer (in this case, EG&G), a description of the type of vehicle manufactured, the use for which it is intended, and the fact that EG&G is a final stage manufacturer. I have enclosed a copy of Part 566 for your

information.

For your information, I have also enclosed a general information sheet for new manufacturers that gives a succinct outline of the relevant NHTSA regulations and explains how to get copies of those regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on this subject, feel free to contact David Elias of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-4.19

DATE: September 4, 1992

FROM: Dale E. Dawkins -- Director, Vehicle Compliance and Safety Affairs, Chrysler

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: S. R. Kratzke -- NHTSA; S. Backaitis -- NHTSA; D. Cohen -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/2/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Dale E. Dawkins (A40; Std. 208)

TEXT:

Chrysler Corporation herein announces its intention of making a modification to the Hybrid III (49 CFR Part 572 Subpart E) test dummy for the purpose of enhancing the reliability of the chest deflection measurement system.

Several years ago Chrysler elected to use the Hybrid III test dummy for motor vehicle occupant protection development and compliance testing. Recently, we have discovered what we consider to be a technical shortcoming of the Hybrid III test dummy chest deflection measurement system that makes it unacceptable, without modification, for testing two-point motorized seat belt systems. Chest deflection measurements have been an ongoing issue between the industry and NHTSA for some time. In angular and frontal impacts, the torso belt deflects the chest in a combination of fore-aft and lateral directions. The lateral deflection component in conjunction with fore-aft deflection causes the rubber bump stops (PN 78051-356) on the inside surface of the sternum to interfere with the slider rod (PN 78051-353) of the chest deflection transducer. When this interference occurs during a vehicle barrier impact test, frequently the ball on the end of the chest deflection rod will pop out of the Delrin guide track it rides in causing the chest deflection measurement to be erroneous. This malfunction of the Hybrid III test dummy has caused us to question several tests of future vehicles necessitating retest.

We have made high speed fiber optic video recordings that confirm the sternum bump stops can interfere with the chest deflection rod, act as a fulcrum and pry the ball on the deflection rod out of its slider track. The rod and rotary potentiometer then indicate erroneous, erratic, nonsensical chest defections. Chrysler and others, through the SAE Dummy Testing Equipment Subcommittee, have learned that relocating one or both of the bump stops from the sternum to the spine of the Hybrid III dummy can alleviate this measurement problem and permit Hybrid III chest deflection measurements. We believe the relocation of the bump stops from the sternum to the spine box is useful and necessary and with due care will not affect the calibration or measurement accuracy of the chest deflection transducer or biofidelity of the Hybrid III thorax.

It is our understanding that the changes proposed are consistent with NHTSA policy. Chrysler hereby notifies the agency of its intentions to relocate the sternum bump stops to the spine (as shown) so that certification testing of a 1994 model year motor vehicle to MVSS 208 may proceed using the Hybrid III.

We understand that using the Hybrid II (49 CFR Part 572 Subpart B) test dummy is an option we have available to us. However, we are reluctant to use the Hybrid II because we prefer the Hybrid III for its superior biofidelity.

Your expeditious acknowledgement of this notice will be very appreciated.

ID: nht92-4.2

DATE: 09/17/92

FROM: MARK W. RUSSO

TO: WALTER MYERS -- NHTSA

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-7-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO MARK W. RUSSO (A40; STD. 222); ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 7-14-92 FROM PAUL RICE TO MICHAEL F. HECKER (STD. 222)

TEXT: Thank you for discussing the R-Bar subject with me. As I mentioned in our conversation, I am very concerned over the "applicability" issue regarding the R-Bar and FMVSS 222. I fear that a device not covered by a "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard" may be installed in a school bus that will be transporting my children!

In addition to our conversation, I want to stress one area where I believe this device creates a condition that could be considered in non compliance with the objectives of FMVSS 222, section S5.1.4 (c). With reference to a NHTSA letter from Mr. Rice to Mr. Hecker (Micho, Ind.) dated May 14, 1992, which indicates that Mr. Hecker claims the device incorporates a design that allows it to "move upward, and away, from the adjoining seat which would thus allow the minimum clearance as intended". Being familiar with the operating principle of this device, I tend to agree in theory. However, what Mr. Hecker fails to mention is that the device also incorporates a "drop down" feature (by nature of a positive mechanical action) which is activated by forward movement of the device! Thus, if a passenger is "recoiled" forward, or if a subsequent frontal collision occurs, impact with the bar should activate this approximate 2 inch drop down feature. So, if there is any concern regarding minimum clearance in accordance with section S5.1.4 (c), it appears the operating principle of this device complicates the problem. Further, I also believe this "drop down" mechanism, in the above scenario, could create the potential for the bar to become jammed against a passenger's legs as a result of this "roller and track" drop down mechanism.

I would also like to know if there has been any further developments at NHTSA regarding the R-Bar subject since Mr. Rice responded to Mr. Hecker of Micho (May 14 letter from NHTSA). The N.J. Department of Pupil Transportation is under the impression that Micho Industries had planned to write to NHTSA again to suggest that only a different "interpretation" of their test data would resolve this issue.

I have a list of questions I am sending to Micho Industries covering many of the things you and I had discussed. I will keep you advised as to their response to these questions and any other new developments. I would appreciate any comments you may have regarding this R-Bar subject.

ID: nht92-4.20

DATE: 09/02/92

FROM: JAMES A. WESTPHAL --OSHKOSH CHASSIS DIVISION, OSHKOSH TRUCK CORPORATION

TO: ADMINISTRATOR -- NHTSA

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-03-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO JAMES A. WESTPHAL (A40; STD. 121)

TEXT: The purpose of this letter is to seek clarification as to which Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for brake systems must the vehicles described herein comply.

Oshkosh Chassis Division of Oshkosh Truck Corporation is a manufacturer of incomplete vehicles (chassis less cab). The chassis being addressed in this letter are sold to manufacturers who complete and sell the vehicles as "motor homes". The chassis for which we are requesting clarification are the "X" and "V" models both of which are over 10,000 pounds GVWR but no larger than 26,000 pounds GVWR.

We plan to install brake systems in these two models which use compressed air to provide braking power, and hydraulic fluid to transmit the energy to the hydraulically activated disk brakes at each wheel. This system is commonly known as "air-over-hydraulic" brakes. Please refer to the attached diagram showing the service brake system logic. The air components of the system include an air compressor and pressure governor, air dryer, air reservoirs, service brake control (treadle) valve, parking brake control valve and spring applied/air release parking brake chamber, and piping/valves/gauges/switches as required. Energy from the compressed air is transmitted to the hydraulic fluid through two air/hydraulic converters (brake boosters). The converter/booster increases the output hydraulic pressure approximately 16 times greater than the input air pressure. The hydraulic components of the system include disk brakes at each wheel, fluid reservoirs, and piping between the air hydraulic converters and disk brakes. Split service brake systems will be used.

Please answer the following compliance questions concerning the vehicles and brake system described above:

1. Must the brake system comply with the requirements of FMVSS 121 applicable to trucks?

2. Must the brake system comply with requirements of FMVSS 105 applicable to multipurpose passenger vehicles?

3. If SS121 compliance is required must the hydraulically powered disk brakes comply with Section S5.4 Service brake system-dynamometer tests?

4. If compliance to parts of both SS121 and SS105 is required must the system meet the requirements of SS105 Sections S5.1.2 Partial failure, S5.1.3 Inoperative brake power assist or brake power unit, and/or S5.3 Brake system indicator lamp?

Thank you for your consideration and response to these questions.ATTACHMENTS (TEXT AND GRAPHICS OMITTED.)

ID: nht92-4.21

DATE: 09/01/92 EST

FROM: JULIA WALL -- HEAD, THE TRINITY SCHOOL OF TEXAS

TO: DOT

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-03-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO JULIA WALL (A40; PART 571.3)

TEXT: Please send a copy, of the federal law that regulates student transportation in general and as it specifically relates to multiple passenger vans.

Thank you for your assistance. The copy should be sent to: