ID: 77-4.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/06/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt for J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Ellcon National, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your September 2, 1977, letter concerning the applicability of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, to a thermopane driver's window in a bus.

In response to your first question, the window to which you refer is required to comply with the requirements of the standard. The fact that it is a driver's window does not exempt it from the coverage of the standard.

Your second question asks how to test thermopane glazing. According to our enforcement staff, testing of thermopane windows can be conducted using the same criteria used for other window glazing. By following the procedures established in S5.1 of the standard, you should be able to accurately test thermopane glazing.

SINCERELY,

September 2, 1977

Frank A. Berndt Acting Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

A question has arisen as to the qualification of an interpretation in a test to be performed on a driver window in a bus we are to supply to our customer.

Subject window is a dual slider containing thermopane glazing and we would appreciate clarification with regard to FMVSS 217. Is it necessary for a test performance in compliance to FMVSS 217?

If test is necessary, how should interpretation of force be measured with regard to thermopane which consists of two 3/16" thick pieces of glass with a 1/4" thick space sealed unit?

Your clarification in this matter would be appreciated. Thank you for assisting us in this matter.

ELLCON-NATIONAL, INC.

Stanley Brajer Project Engineer

ID: 77-4.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/12/77

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

TO: Robert D. Scifres

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of October 27, 1977, asking whether the use of two rearview mirrors in one mounting is permitted if one of the mirrors fails to meet Federal requirements.

Safety Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR 571.111), requires each passenger car to have an outside rearview mirror of unit magnification (plane mirror) on the driver's side of the vehicle. Paragraph S4.2.1 of the standard specifies the field of view that must be provided by this outside mirror. Provided the vehicle is equipped with one mirror that meets the requirements of paragraph S4.2.1, the use of additional, non-complying, mirrors is not precluded by the standard, even if the mirrors are in the same mounting with the complying mirror.

Please contact us if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

October 27, 1977

TO: U.S. Department of Transportation -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

FROM: Robert D. Scifres

SUBJECT: Request for interpretation - Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, S3.2.1.1

As can be seen in the attached drawing(Exhibit I), this outside rearview mirror for passenger cars incorporates the use of two mirrors located in one assembly. One mirror(A) would conform in all respects to the current standards. The second mirror(B) would conform to all standards except as it relates to the field of vision. In itself the height would not provide the required reflected field of vision, but in conjunction with mirror (A) would provide an expanded field of vision to the extent the "blind spot" would be eliminated. Each mirror is adjustable both horizontally and vertically, allowing the driver to adjust each to give him the maximum reflection.

While the standards do not specifically nor indirectly state a single faced mirror only will be allowed; and although paragraph (1) of 32 F.R. 2413, dated February 3, 1967 relates to a "supplemental" mirror in addition to the inside and outside mirrors; and subsequent revisions do not change the above, I strongly feel an interpretation is in order.

My request comes about because of a very near accident involving me when I started to change lanes on a high speed highway. After checking both inside and outside rearview mirrors, I started to pull into the next lane to my left. Only because the driver of the vehicle behind me was alert prevented a serious accident. I have discussed this situation with about one hundred fifty of my acquaintences and almost all have experienced the same thing in one degree or another with several actually having an accident and three involved in rear end collisions because they had turned their head to make sure about the blind spot only to ram the rear of the cars in front of them.

In view of the standards as written, I feel an interpretation should be given and I shall appreciate an early response to this request

(Graphics omitted)

EXHIBIT I

Fig 1

ID: 77-4.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/28/77

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

TO: The Coachette Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your August 18, 1977, letter asking whether the head protection zone requirements of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, apply to a portion of your bus located directly above the side windows.

You enclosed a sketch which details the bus sidewall and roof structure. On that sketch, you have shaded a small area asking whether that portion of the bus constitutes part of the bus sidewall or part of the roof structure. The head protection zone requirements of the standard (S5.3.1.1) do not apply to the sidewalls of school buses.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) interprets your sketch to show the sidewall ending and the roof structure beginning at the point where the radius of curvature of the interior structure decreases sharply (see the point marked "A" on the sketch). Since the shaded portion of your sketch falls below that point, it is considered part of the sidewall and need not comply with the head protection zone requirements.

SINCERELY, (Illegible Words)

August 18, 1977

Joseph Levin, Chief Office of Chief Council N.H.T.S.A.

RE: FMVSS 222 Pora. S5.3.1.1.

A clarification of the above referenced standard is urgently needed. Due to the "tumble home" type of the side of some van-type school buses, there is no clear distinction where the side wall would end and the roof structure would start.

S5.3.1.1. of FMVSS 222 states that the head protection zones are the spaces in front of each school bus passenger seat which are not occupied by bus side wall, window or door structure . . . etc.

Please refer to the enclosed sketch and note that the outboard plane (S5.3.1.1. (c)) of the head protection zones intersects the wall at approximately the window header point. The wall extends upward and inward from that point. This leaves an area, indicated by the shaded portion of the sketch that would extend into the head protection zone. Is this configuration in compliance with the standard? There is no greater hazard to the occupant from the window header to well above the upper limits of the head protection (Illegible Word) than any where in the wall area.

It is very urgent that we get an opinion on this just as soon as possible. After you have reviewed this, we would like to phone or if necessary come to your office for the clarification.

Thanking you in advance for your consideration.

E.H. Ryan

ward

SCHOOL BUS MFG., Inc. P.O. BOX 311 HIGHWAY 65 CONWAY, ARKANSAS 72032 DATE - 8-18-77 CHK- DRAFT: DM ENGR: SCALE IN OR OUT PART ORDER NO REV CHANGE BY DATE

MATERIAL -

TOLERANCE

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 77-4.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/12/77

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

TO: Anders-Barton Automotive Design

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking whether your modifications of Toyota pickup trucks comply with the requirements of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

The NHTSA requires that a person who modifies a vehicle attach a label to the vehicle indicating that, as modified, the vehicle continues to comply with all safety standards (49 CFR Part 567. Certification). From your letter, it appears that you are in compliance with this requirement. You should note further that section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed in a motor vehicle or an item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with a Federal safety standard. In the case of a vehicle which is being converted from one vehicle type to another (e.g., a sedan to a convertible), modification of safety systems would not violate section 108 as long as the modified systems complied with the standards that would have been applicable to the vehicle had it been originally manufactured as the vehicle type to which it is being converted.

As long as you ensure that the vehicle continues to comply with all of the standards applicable to it and you do not render inoperative any safety device or element of design, you would appear to be in compliance with the agency's requirements. You should note that the waiver signed by your customers would not remove your responsibility for any defects or noncompliances with our standards.

ID: 77-4.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/28/77

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

TO: Cantey; Hanger; Gooch; Munn & Collins

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your August 9, 1977, letter asking whether an alterer's responsibility for ensuring the compliance of a vehicle with Federal safety standards, as required in Part 567, Certification, extends only to those aspects of performance that could have been affected by the alteration or whether it extends to the compliance of the entire vehicle with all Federal standards.

The intent of the alteration regulation is to make vehicle alterers responsible for the continued compliance of the vehicles they modify. Therefore, an alterer would be held responsible for any noncompliance of a vehicle caused by his alterations. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration would not hold the alterer liable for noncompliances in a vehicle that were the responsibility of the original vehicle manufacturer and not affected by the alterer's conduct.

ID: 77-4.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/28/77

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

TO: Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your August 19, 1977, letter asking whether Standard 217, Bus Window Retention Release, allows the identification of the rear emergency door located anywhere on the top half of the door.

The standard in S5.5.3 requires the emergency door identification to be located "at the top of or directly above the emergency exit. . . ." The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration interprets this requirement to mean that the emergency door label must be located on the top half of the door or directly above the door. The label location as depicted in the picture you enclosed with your letter appears to comply with the requirements S5.5.3.

SINCERELY,

Thomas BUILT BUSES, INC.

August 19, 1977

Office of the Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation

Attn: Roger Tilton, F.M.V.S.S. - 217

Enclosed is a photo showing the location of the wording "Emergency Door" on the rear of a school bus.

This is in reference to our phone conversations regarding Section S5.5.3. School Buses of 17 August, 1977. (F.M.V.S.S. - 217)

The glass area at the top will have an illuminated sign with the words "School Bus". When not used as a school bus by State Law it must be covered.

The result is that the cover does not permit the word "Emergency Door" to be on top of the door and, also, the size required by S5.5.3. Pennsylvania requires a three (3) (Illegible Word) letter which is impossible.

Actually, we feel that the location on a school bus as pictured is safer particularly in a vertical position since it is closer to a person eye level.

We trust you will look with favor upon this request, and wish to thank you for your courtesies to us during our phone conversations.

James Tydings, Specifications Engineer

ID: 77-4.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/28/77

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

TO: McCandlish; Lillard; Bauknight; Church & Best

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your August 4, 1977, letter asking whether the remanufacture of a school bus using a new chassis and an old school bus body constitutes the manufacture of a new school bus subject to the new Federal school bus safety standards.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has determined that the manufacture of a vehicle using a new chassis and an old body is the manufacture of a new vehicle. (Part 571.7, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations.) In this regulation the agency indicated that the only time that the remanufacture of a vehicle would be exempted from compliance with the new safety standards is when an old chassis is combined with a new body. In those situations, the vehicle is considered a used vehicle not subject to the standards.

In the case to which you refer, the combination of a new chassis and an old school bus body would require that you modify the bus body to comply with all of the Federal school bus safety standards in effect on the date of your manufacture of the new bus.

SINCERELY,

McCANDLISH, LILLARD, BAUKNIGHT, CHURCH & BEST

AUGUST 4, 1977

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration United States Department of Transportation

This office represents the County School Board of Fairfax County, Virginia. A 1975 school bus was damaged extensively in November of 1976, and due to the failure of the insurance company for the responsible driver to pay, we have had to look very carefully into the question of damage to school buses.

In my search for an economical way to repair this bus, I have discovered that there are new regulations from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration dealing with the installation of old school bus bodies on chassis manufactured after April 1, 1977. In this case, putting the old school bus body onto a chassis would be the cheapest way to repair the bus but it appears that this runs afoul of regulations of your agency.

I would appreciate very much your advice on this matter, especially your direction as to the regulations which control this matter.

Robert H. J. Loftus

ID: 77-4.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/29/77

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

TO: Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-5-84 from F. Berndt to R. Marion; Also attached to letter dated 3-23-90 from A.H. Brett to M.B. Mathieson; Also attached to letter dated 12-3-90 from P.J. Rice to M.B. Mathieson (A36; Std. 217); Also attached to letter dated 3-26-90 from M.B. Mathieson to E.Z. Jones (OCC 4598); Also attached to letter dated 3-30-90 from M.B. Mathieson to M.F. Trentacoste; Also attached to letter dated 8-8-89 from M.F. Trentacoste to K. Finkel

TEXT: This responds to your August 25, 1977, letter asking several questions about the applicability of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, to buses other than school buses.

Your first state your conclusion that paragraph S5.2 of the standard applies only to buses other than school buses. Your interpretation of S5.2 is correct. Secondly, you state that S5.2.1 applies to all buses with GVWR's of more than 10,000 pounds. This assertion is incorrect. See S5.2.3. Paragraph S5.2.1 applies only to buses other than school buses that have GVWR's greater than 10,000 pounds.

Your final inquiry pertaining to Standard No. 217 concerns the requirement for unobstructed emergency exits in both school and non-school buses. You first correctly state that paragraphs S5.4 through S5.4.2.1 describe the required size of the unobstructed openings for school buses. You then claim that there is no equivalent description for the size of unobstructed openings required in buses other than school buses. This last statement is not entirely accurate. The amount of unobstructed emergency exit openings required for buses other than school buses is detailed in S5.2. This section establishes requirements for the total area of unobstructed emergency exit openings and for the location of those exits. This section also specifies the extent to which the area of each exit is to be counted in determining compliance with the total unobstructed opening requirement. Therefore, although the standard does not specify minimum size requirements for individual exits in buses other than school buses, the standard does contain other requirements for unobstructed openings in buses other than school buses.

You concluded in your letter that buses other than school buses are not required to use the parallelepiped device in determining whether their rear exits comply with the requirements. This conclusion is accurate. For purposes of clarity, however, you should note that Standard No. 217 does not mandate rear doors in buses other than school buses. Those buses can utilize either rear exits or roof exits. Further, regardless of the fact that you use a rear emergency door in buses other than school buses, you must insure that you also provide the other mandatory exits and the correct area of unobstructed openings as described in paragraphs S5.2 through S5.2.2.

SINCERELY,

Thomas BUILT BUSES, INC.

August 25, 1977

Office of The Chief Counsel U. S. Department of Transportation

Attn: Roger Chilton

The purpose of this letter is to request an interpretation of FMVSS No. 217 regarding the range of it's application, as follows: Para.S.5.2 - Speaks to buses other than schoolbuses and requires "unobstructed" openings for emergency exit . . ." going on to define the area requirements.

Para.S.5.2.1 - Speaks to "Buses with GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds". This presumably covers all buses. It further states that ". . . buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 lbs. shall meet the unobstructed openings requirement by providing . . . one rear exit that conforms to S.5.3 through S.5.5".

Under paragraph S.5.4 thru S.5.4.2.1.(a) as amended May 25, 1976, the unobstructed opening of a school bus is described as "an opening large enough to permit unobstructed passage of a rectangular parallelepiped 45 inches high, 24 inches wide and 12 inches deep, keeping . . .". There is no description that pertains to the unobstructed opening of a non-school bus.

We have, therefore, decided that the non-school bus needs only a 12 inch wide clear aisle opening at the rear door to meet the requirements of FMVSS 217. Is this interpretation correct?

We would appreciate an early answer to this query.

Malcolm B. Mathieson, Engineering Manager

ID: 77-5.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/12/77

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

TO: Mrs. Edward Foster

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your recent letter to President Carter concerning the installation of a bench seat in a cargo van was forwarded to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for reply. You were apparently told by your local Ford dealer that Federal law prohibits the installation of a seat in the cargo area of a van vehicle.

The Ford dealer's representation to you was incorrect. There is no Federal law that precludes installation of a seat such as your letter describes; although, depending on the time and manner of the installation, the seat might be subject to Federal safety standards.

If the vehicle manufacturer (Ford) or your dealer installs the seat prior to the time you take possession of the vehicle, either will have to certify that the vehicle, including the seat, is in compliance with all applicable safety standards, as provided in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.). Specifically, the installation of the seat would require compliance with Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and Safety Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Anchorages. If done by your dealer, he would be required to attach a label or tag to the vehicle certifying that, as altered, the vehicle was in compliance with all safety standards, including the three just mentioned (49 CFR 567.7).

If you first take possession of the vehicle, you or your dealer may then install an additional seat without certifying compliance with Federal safety standards (15 U.S.C. 1397). Your dealer would, however, be subject to section 108 (a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act, which provides 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. This means that the dealer would not be permitted to destroy the vehicle's conformity to any safety standard by his installation of the additional seat. We do strongly recommend that, for the safety of your child, you assure the seat and safety belts conform to the minimum performance requirements of our safety standards.

Perhaps it is the policy of Ford Motor Company and its dealers not to install additional seats in cargo vans because of the responsibilities mentioned above. The policy is not, however, a Federal law. I suggest you show this letter to your local dealer.

SINCERELY,

President Jimmy Carter

Dear Mr. President:

My husband will be starting a new independent business within the next several weeks that requires him to use a cargo van. We have ordered a 1978 Ford van and need a standard back seat directly behind the driver area. We were told it was a newly passed Federal law that prohibits the installation of a seat in the cargo area. Having exhausted our efforts locally and within our area, we are now in a position to seek assistance from the only person left to aid us in acquiring a seat for our van.

We are the parents of a severely retarded child twelve years of age who is unable to sit normally in a regular seat. We therefore are left to improvise by seat-belting him into a standard seat for transporting him from the various places in the reclinger position.

As I am employed in a part-time position in Delivery, ten miles from our home, it is necessary to use the van on those days for his father to bring him home while I work.

We are therefore requesting your assistance in acquiring a seat for our van by authorizing the Ford Motor Company to install a seat behind the driver equipped with seat belts for the convenience of a handicapped child Please consider this special privilege we are requesting and it is our hope that placing yourself in the same position you will be able to understand the plight.

Your simple attention to this request will be greatly appreciated as our order has not been processed as of this date and we need your authorization to complete our order.

Thanking you in advance.

Mary Edwards Foster

P.S Our order was placed with the Reavis Ford, Inc.

January 21, 1975

To Whom It May Concern:

Christopher Lee Foster, son of Mr. & Mrs. Edward L. Foster is severly physically and mentally retarded with I Q definitely under 40.

Hilda H. Bailey, M. D.

ID: 77-5.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/21/77

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

TO: McElwee, Hall & McElwee

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter asking whether the Holly Farms Service Center would qualify as a "motor vehicle repair business" as that term is defined in Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq.). This is an elaboration of our letter to you of November 8, 1977.

According to your description, the Holly Farms Service Center only repairs and maintains vehicles owned by Holly Farms, except for an occasional repair as an accomodation to another company whose vehicle has broken down on the premises.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) specifies that "motor vehicle repair business" means

"any person who holds himself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation."

Based on your description of the function of the Holly Farms Service Center, it would not be considered a "motor vehicle repair business" for purposes of the Vehicle Safety Act. The fact that the Service Center occasionally repairs another company's vehicles does not change our interpretation, provided the Service Center does not hold itself out to the public as being in the business of making such repairs for compensation.

Since the Service Center would not be considered a "motor vehicle repair business", it could alter the braking systems on Holly Farms' vehicles without violating the "render inoperative" provisions of Section 108(a)(2)(A).

SINCERELY,

McELWEE, HALL & McELWEE

December 2, 1977

Hugh Oates Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Holly Farms Poultry Industries, Inc. FMVSS 121 Air Brake Systems

In accordance with our telephone conversation of this date, I enclose herewith a copy of our letter of November 17, 1977. We would appreciate an immediate reply to the questions posed therein.

MCELWEE, HALL & MCELWEE William C. Warden, Jr.

ENC.

McELWEE, HALL & McELWEE

November 17, 1977

Hugh Oates Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Holly Farms Poultry Industries, Inc. FMVSS 121 Air Brake Systems

Holly Farms Poultry Industries, Inc. has as one of its divisions a unit called "The Service Center." This garage repairs Holly Farms' own vehicles such as tractor-trailers. There are approximately 139 tractors, and Holly Farms has service center shops in Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina and Texas. Only Holly Farms' vehicles are repaired or maintained at these centers, except occasionally if another company's vehicle should break down at the Holly Farms premises, as an accommodation, this service center will perform some minor repairs to get the vehicle back on the road. Holly Farms Service Center does not repair vehicles for compensation for the general public.

In reference to your letter of November 8, 1977 to Congressman Stephen L. Neal, we would like to clarify with you and have an expression of your opinion as to whether or not the Holly Farms Service Center comes within the prohibitions of 15 U.S.C.A. 1397 (a) (2) (A). In particular, as to whether or not the Service Center is included in the term "motor vehicle repair business." As you are no doubt aware, Holly Farms is contemplating disconnecting portions of the brake systems upon vehicles it owns and operates itself, and would like to have its own Service Center do this. Therefore, does the aforementioned section of the Code prohibit Holly Farms Service Center from disconnecting the safety device. Please express your opinion in a letter to me.

William C. Warden, Jr.

cc: ODELL WHITTINGTON; VERNON CHURCH