ID: nht87-2.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/10/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Anonymous (confidential)

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Dear This is in reply to your letter of March 13, 1987, with respect to whether a new headlamp design is permissible under Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

In the new design, the upper aiming pad is integral with the lens but it recessed and concealed by the lip of the hood. Thus, the hood must be open for a mechanical aimer to be applied. You believe that this is not precluded by section 5.1 of SAE J580 in corporated by reference in Standard No. 109, which requires aiming to be effected "without the removal of any ornamental trim rings or other parts."

Your drawing indicates that the flange is part of the headlamp lens even though that portion of the lens is not needed to provide illumination. The fact that the hood must be raised in order to aim the headlamps does not constitute a "removal" within the meaning of SAE J580. Therefore this design is not prohibited by Standard No. 108.

In accordance of your letter of April 27, 1987, your request for confidentiality is granted to the extent that all information which might identify you or your employer will be deleted from the publicity available copies of this letter.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ms Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590 13 March 87 Dear Ms Jones

RE: INTERPRETATION OF FMVSS NO. 108, LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES, AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT REFERENCES SAD J580, SECTION 5.1 AUG 79

REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIALITY - HEADLAMP LENS AND AIMING PAD DESIGN

the of the passenger car seeks a legal interpretation of FMVSS No.108; referen ced SAE J580 Aug 79, Sealed beam headlight assembly and confidentiality of its new headlamp lens and aiming pad design. SAE 580, Section (5.1) states, "Headlamps shall be de signed so that they may be inspected and aimed by mechanical aimers as specified in SAE 602 c (December 1974) without the removal of any ornamental trim rings or other parts."

is proposing a replaceable bulb type headlamp system with the upper aiming pad integral with the lens but recessed and concealed by the lip of the hood as shown in the attached drawing. It is, opinion that our lamp design is permissible under FMVSS No. 108 referenced SAE 580 Section 5.1. That is, if it is acceptable to raise the hood to adjust headlamp so should it be permissible to raise the hood to attach mechanical aimers.

For this reason requests a legal interpretation of SAE J580, Section 5.1 and request confidentiality of our headlamp design described and shown herein. Yours Sincerely Chief Engineer INSERT GRAPHIC

ID: nht87-2.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/13/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Lyon L. Brinsmade -- Porter and Clements

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Lyon L. Brinsmade, Esq. Porter & Clements 3500 Republicbank Center Houston, TX 77002

This responds for your request for information regarding Federal regulation of semi-trailer manufacturing. You asked about Federal standards applicable to "pneumatic aluminum tank type semi-trailers" which your client wishes to manufacture abroad and imp ort into the United States. You were particularly concerned about specifications for aspects of the vehicle which pneumatically load and discharge substances into and out of the tank unit.

I would like to take this opportunity to provide some background information concerning this agency's regulations. you are correct that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers Federal regulations for that manufacture and sa le of new motor vehicles, including semi-trailers. NHTSA is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse ant commercial produ cts. Instead, the Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that the products meet all applicable safety standards. This process requires each manufacturer to determine in th e exercise of due care that its products meet all applicable requirements. (A general information sheet describing manufacturers' responsibilities under the Vehicle Safety Act is enclosed.)

We note that the term "manufacturer" is defined by section 102(5) of the Act to mean "any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equip ment for resale." (Emphasis added.) Therefore your client, as a manufacturer of motor vehicles, is responsible for certifying compliance with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards. The procedure, specified in 49 CFR Part 567, requires also that the manufacturer provide safety information on the certification label, includ ing the vehicle's gross weight rating and gross axle weight rating.

At this time, the only safety standards applicable to all trailers are Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment, Standard No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars, and Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number - Basic Requirements. The content requirements for the vehicle identification number are found at Part 565. Your client's trailers also must meet Standard No. 106, Brake hoses, Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle brake flui ds, and applicable requirements of Standard No. 121, Air brake systems. These standards are found in 49 CFR Part 571.

You were particularly concerned about Federal standards applicable to pneumatic tank of the semi-trailer. There are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards for pneumatic tank units. However, even in the absence of an applicable safety standard, the Vehicle Safety Act imposes general responsibilities on manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment regarding safety defects. Manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment are responsible generally for ensuring safety-related defects and can perform their intended function safely. If your client or the agency determines that a safety-related defect or noncompliance exists, your client is obligated under section 151 et seq. of the Act to notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem without charge. Manufacturers who fail to provide notification of or remedy for a defect or noncompliance may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation.

In addition to the regulations described above, your client should be aware of two procedural rules which apply to all manufacturers subject to the regulation of this agency. The first is 49 CFR Part ???, Manufacturer Identification. This rule requires y our client to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment it manufacturers to this agency within 30 days after it imports its products in the Unite States.

The other rule is 49 CFR Part 551, Procedural Rules. Subpart D of this regulation requires all manufacturers headquartered outside of the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of all process, notices, orders and decisions. This designation should mailed to the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Ave., S. W., Washington D. C., 20590, and must include the following information:

1. A certification that the designation of agent in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;

2. The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing address of the manufacturer;

3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear its name;

4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer; 5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed, which may an individual, a firm or a United States Corporation; and

6. The full legal name of the designated agent.

In addition, the designation must be signed by a person with authority to appoint the agent. The signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his or her signature.

You asked whether your client's semi-trailers would be affected by regulations administered by other Federal agencies. If the semi-trailer will be used to transport a material designated by the Secretary of Transportation as a "hazardous material" (see 4 9 CFR Part 172), then the transportation of that material is regulated by the Office of Hazardous Materials Transportation of the Research and Special Projects Administration (RSPA). You can contact the director of that office, Mr. Alan Roberts, at 366-0 656 for more information on RSPA's regulations in addition, you might be interested in information about regulations for interstate motor carriers issued by the Federal Highway Administration. Mr. Tim Kozlowski of the Office of Motor Carrier Standards, F ederal Highway Administration, can provide you with more information. He may be reached at this address, Room 3403, or by telephone at (202) 366-1790.

I hope this information has been helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation Room 5219 - 400 7th Street S. W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Attention: Chief Counsel's Office

Gentlemen:

This letter is written by way of following up a telephone conference between the writer and your Ms. Didre Hom and is to respectfully request the issuance by your office of a written interpretation concerning compliance with applicable government regulat ions of certain semi-trailers which one of our clients manufactures abroad and proposes to import to the United States for sale and use in this country. Such semi-trailers are described below.

Thus, the subject semi-trailers are of the pneumatic aluminum tank type (see enclosed photocopy) and are used for the transportation in bulk of substances such as cement, flour, lime, sugar, powdered milk, powdered fertilizer and, in general, other subst ances in dry powdered form, which may be loaded and discharged into and out of the tank unit, pneumatically at a pressure of up to 15 pounds per square inch. Detailed specifications of these semi-trailers are attached hereto.

If you should need any additional information, please specify the additional information in as much detail as possible for us to be able to compile the same.

Also, if the characteristics of the subject semi-trailers, as described herein and in the attached, fail to meet applicable requirements, please specify any such failures in as much detail as possible to enable our client to correct the same.

Additionally, we would appreciate your letting us know if there is any other federal agency apart from yours that would need to be consulted to make sure that the specifications of the subject semi-trailers are in compliance with all existing requirement s that may be applicable under federal law.

Yours very truly,

Lyon L. Brinsmade

SPECIFICATIONS OF PNEUMATIC ALUMINUM TANK TYPE SEMI-TRAILERS MANUFACTURED ABROAD AND PROPOSED TO BE IMPORTED FOR SALE IN THE UNITED STATES

(Omitted)

ID: nht87-2.51

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/13/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Thomas Wagstaff

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Thomas Wagstaff, Esq. Blackwell, Sanders, Matheny, Weary & Lombardi Five Crown Center 2480 Pershing Road P.O. Box 419777 Kansas City, MO 64141-6777

Dear Mr. Wagstaff:

This letter responds to your inquiry of April 27, 1987. In your letter, you state that you represent a client called Roll-O-Matic Chain Company, and further state that your client is considering a recall of four models of a product called "SureFoot Safet y Walk Ramps." You do not state the nature of the problem that leads your client to consider a recall.

You enclose a customer brochure describing the ramps, providing specifications for them, and explaining their use. The brochure shows that the walk ramp attaches to the rear of a truck trailer, and is used to unload cargo from the trailer. You ask whethe r your client's recall is subject to the notice and reporting requirements of 15 U.S.C. S1391 et seq., and 49 CFR Parts 573 and 577.

Section 1419 of Title 15 U.S.C. defines certain terms used in the context of notice-and-recall campaigns. Among those terms is "replacement equipment," there defined as "motor vehicle equipment (including a tire) other than original equipment." The term "motor vehicle equipment" is defined further in 15 U.S.C. S1391 to include "any accessory...to the motor vehicle." In determining whether an item of equipment is an "accessory," the agency assesses two factors: first, whether the item has no ostensible p urpose other than use with a motor vehicle; and second, whether the item is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

While it may appear that the safety ramp has purposes other than use with a motor vehicle, the promotional literature you sent specifies truck/trailer deck heights, and illustrates the ramp's use with a truck trailer. Roll-o-Matic apparently promotes the safety ramp for ordinary users in the business of cargo unloading. (Note that although a person may use this product only when the vehicle is not operating, the agency has the authority to regulate both the operational and nonoperational safety of vehic les.

For these reasons, NHTSA would classify your client's product under SS1419 and 1391 as motor vehicle replacement equipment (specifically as an "accessory"), and your client as a manufacturer of such equipment.

Because 49 CFR Parts 573 and 577 apply to "manufacturers" of "replacement equipment," your client is subject to the notice and reporting requirements of these regulations, and incurs certain obligations with respect to motor vehicle safety related defect s under Part B of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

I hope you find this information helpful.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

April 21, 1987

Ms. Erika Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street S.W. Room 1519 Federal Express Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Defect and Non-Compliance Notice and Reporting Requirements

Dear Ms. Jones:

Blackwell Sanders Matheny Weary & Lombardi law firm represents Roll-O-Matic Chain Company, a Kansas City based company. Between the dates December, 1985, and March, 1987, Roll-O-Matic manufactured and sold four models of "SureFoot Safety Walk Ramps." Enc losed herein is a customer brochure describing the ramps, their usage and specifications.

Roll-O-Matic is currently considering a recall of all these model ramps. Roll-O-Matic would replace all the ramps recalled.

Roll-O-Matic requests an official opinion from your office a; to whether a recall of these ramps is subject to the reporting and notification requirements of 15 USC S1391 et seq.. 49 C.F.R. S573. and 49 C.F.R. S577.

We would appreciate as prompt a response as possible.

If you need any additional information, please do not hesitate to call me.

Very truly your

Thomas W. Wagstaff TWW/rmg

Enclosure

SEE HARD COPY FOR GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATIONS

ID: nht87-2.52

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/13/87

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: JACK DE NIJS DERONDE CASINGS, LTD.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/09/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO DONALD N. STAHL RE MCCOY TIRE SERVICE CENTER D.A. NO CF 696 REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 119, PART 574; UNDATED LETTER FROM JOHN T. FORTH AND DONALD N. STAHL TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA RE MCCOY TIRE SERVICE CENTER D.A. NO CF696, OCC 1749; LETTER DATED 03/01/88 FROM DAVE TAYLOR TO JOHN T. FORTH, EXHIBIT 1; LETTER DATED 05/19/87 FROM JACK DENIJS TO ERIKA Z. JONES, SUBJECT COVERED DOT NUMBERS ON REMANUFACTURED TRUCK CASINGS; DRAWING OF TI RE DATED 01/14/88, MODESTO CITY SCHOOLS TIRE INFORMATION, EXHIBIT 3

TEXT: Dear Mr. De Nijs:

This responds to your letter to this office, in which you asked whether you could import into the United States foreign truck tire casings that do not have either a DOT symbol or a tire identification number on the sidewall. You stated in your letter th at you would either retread these tires yourself or sell them to other retreaders to be retreaded. Subject to certain conditions, you may import these casings.

The general provisions dealing with the importation of items of motor vehicle equipment such as tires are set forth in section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)). That section makes it unlawful fo r any person to import into the United States any item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date that an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect, unless the equipment (tire) is in conformity with the standard. Fe deral Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR @ 571.119) took effect on March 1, 1975. Standard No. 119 requires that truck tires and other tires for use on vehicles other than passenger cars pass certain performance and be labeled with certain safety information, including the tire identification number. The tire manufacturer is required to certify that each of its truck tires complies with Standard No. 119 by permanently molding the s ymbol DOT into or onto the sidewall of the tire. Thus, any tires without a DOT symbol on the sidewall that were manufactured on or after March 1, 1975 would not be in compliance with Standard No. 119 and could not legally be imported into the United Sta tes.

However, the agency reached a somewhat different conclusion with respect to the permissibility of importing truck tire casings in a June 18, 1981 letter from former Chief Counsel Frank Berndt to Mr. Roy Littlefield (copy enclosed). In that letter, the a gency concluded that truck tire casings that have less than 2/32 inch of tread and which are imported solely to be retreaded are not "items of motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act. This conclusion

means that truck tire casings that meet these conditions may be imported into the United States. Please note that you cannot legally import any non-complying truck tire casings that have 2/32 inch or more of tread or any non-complying casings that will not be retreaded before they are used on the public roads.

If you have any further questions on this subject, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht87-2.53

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/15/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Bill Goodling

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

July 15, 1985 The Honorable Bill Goodling 2263 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Mr. Goodling: Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Andy Witten of Biglerville, Pennsylvania, concerning our regulations for school buses. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply. Mr. Witten believes that Federal law prohibits schoo ls from carrying more than 9 students in a van. He suggested that the law should be changed to allow schools to use the full capacity of 15-passenger vans. I appreciate this opportunity to clarify our regulations for school buses. As explained below, there is no Federal law prohibiting schools from transporting 15 school children in a 15-passenger van. Federal law does, however, affect the sale of buses to schools. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, to regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, including school buses. Congress amended t he Vehicle Safety Act in 1974 to direct NHTSA to issue motor vehicle safety standards on specific aspects of school bus safety, such as emergency exits, seating systems, windows and windshields, and fuel systems. The standards we issued became effective April 1, 1977, and apply to each school bus manufactured on or after that date. The Vehicle Safety Act requires any person selling a new "school bus" to ensure that the vehicle complies with our school bus safety standards. Under Federal law, a "school b us" is defined as a motor vehicle designed for 11 or more persons and intended for transporting students to and from school or related events. Thus, a 10- or 15-passenger van is considered a school bus if intended for school purposes, and our school bus safety standards apply to those vehicles as well as to larger school buses. If any new school bus does not meet those standards, the seller may be required under the Vehicle Safety Act to recall the vehicle and to pay civil penalties. The Federal requir ements apply only to the manufacture and sale of school buses, not to their operation. State law determines the requirements which vehicles must meet in order to be licensed for use as school buses. School vehicles that are within Pennsylvania's definiti on of a "school bus" are subject to the State's requirements for school buses. We are aware that Pennsylvania has recently amended its definition of a "school bus" by extending it to vehicles with a capacity of 10 passengers and a driver. Previously, tho se vehicles were excluded from the definition. Pennsylvania now requires those previously-excluded vehicles to comply with the State's school bus regulations in order to be used as school buses in that State. The nature of the State's regulations for school bus use is a matter left to Pennsylvania. Our agency has issued recommendations for state highway safety programs regarding the use of school buses in Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, Pupil Transpor tation Safety (copy enclosed), which Pennsylvania may choose to adopt. Program Standard No. 17 is part of a series of program standards covering various aspects of highway safety which were issued by NHTSA under the authority of the Highway Safety Act of 1966. Pennsylvania may have decided that our recommendations should be made part of the state's comprehensive regulations for school bus usage. Again, however, operating requirements which school buses must meet are determined by State officials. I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosures: Constituent's correspondence, HSPS No. 17

ID: nht87-2.54

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/17/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Marsha Jay

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Marsha Jay Administrative Assistant Texas Automobile Dealers Association P. O. Box 1028 Austin, TX 78767-1028

Dear Ms. Jay:

This responds to your June 5, 1987, letter on behalf of a member of your association who wishes to sell a 12-passenger van to a school. In a June telephone call, you asked also about our requirements for persons reducing the passenger capacity of a new b us to nine or fewer.

As explained below, a 12-passenger van sold to a school is a "school bus." The dealer who sells such a van to a school must therefore sell a certified school bus.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes this agency to establish safety standards for new motor vehicles. Under our regulations, a new vehicle designed for carrying 11 or more persons (including the driver) is considered to be a "bus ," and is considered to be a "school bus" if sold for school-related purposes. A new "school bus" must meet all Federal safety standards applicable to buses, and also those specifically applicable to "school bus," including Standard 217, Bus Window Reten tion and Release, Standard 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, and Standard 301, Fuel System Integrity. The Act requires each person selling a new school bus to ensue that the nonconforming bus for school bus use will subject the sell er to a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each vehicle and up to $800,000 for a related series of violations.

You specifically asked about our safety belt requirements for 12-passenger school buses. Safety Standard No. 222 requires safety belts only for passengers on each school bus with gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less. The Driver's s eating position in any bus, regardless of its GVWR, must have a safety belt under a separate standard for occupant crash protection. Since you are interested in reviewing the standards which apply to small school buses, I have enclosed an information she et that describes how you can obtain copies of our safety standards and other regulations.

Federal law does not prohibit a dealer from removing seats from a 12-passenger bus, However, Federal law sets limits on how the alteration may be made. A dealer restricting the passenger capacity of a new bus to 9 or fewer before the vehicle is sold or d elivered to the owner is considered as "alterer" under our regulations. (49 CFR S567.7, Requirements for Persons who Alter Certified Vehicles.) Such an alteration changes the vehicle's classification to that of a multipurpose vehicle (MPV). As a result, the person modifying the new vehicle would be required to certify that the vehicle complies with all of the standards applicable to MPV's. Among other things, this would entail the installation of safety belts at all seating positions.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact me if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ms. Deirdre Hom NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel Room 5219 400 7th St. S. W. Washington D. C. 20590

Dear Ms. Hom:

I spoke to someone in your office recently regarding Federal Regulations concerning the use of multi-purpose passenger vehicles being used to transport children. One of our dealers would like to sell twelve-passenger vans which would be used to transport school children. He has questioned the rules and regulations regarding the following:

1. Seat Belts

2. Other Safety Standards

3. Seller liability, provided that the vehicles comply with Federal Standards.

I will relay this information to our dealer as soon as I receive it from you. Your help in this matter is very much appreciated.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.

Sincerely,

Marsha Jay Administrative Assistant

ID: nht87-2.55

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: JULY 21, 1987

FROM: JAY COSTA -- ASSISTANT PROCUREMENT SPECIALIST, METROPOLITAN SEATTLE

TO: DEIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 2-23-88, TO JAY COSTA, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, STD 271, REDBOOK A31; MEMO DATED 6-18-87, CONTRACT NO. T/F 19-84 REAR EMERGENCY WINDOW; MEMO DATED 6-25-87, CONTACT NO. T/F 19-83 REAR EMERGENCY WINDOW

TEXT: We have a unique problem with our articulated trolley coach which we believe you may be able to help us solve.

The problem we are experiencing concerns passengers opening the rear emergency window and pulling the ropes, causing the poles to dewire. This could cause serious injury to the passenger doing this as well as to others. It is also an interruption of se rvice, as the driver must stop the bus and put the poles back on the wire. It is our belief that in the interest of safety the rear emergency window should be removed and replaced with a non-operable type window. This task can be done quite simply by o ur Body Shop.

As we understand FMVSS 217, we could accomplish this task. We inquired of the manufacturer of the trolley about this problem and enclose copies of their letters on this topic. Their letters also include information on the available emergency windows an d hatches on this bus. These 46 buses are 60 ft. long, three-axle articulated buses which are electrically powered from overhead wires.

We would like to receive from you clarification on FMVSS 217 and a formal opinion regarding our proposed action.

ENCLOSURES

ID: nht87-2.56

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/22/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Allan Fogel

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Allan Fogel New York City Office of the Comptroller Bureau of Management Audit 161 William Street New York, NY 10038

Dear Mr. Fogel:

This responds to your March 6, 1987 letter to my office asking whether we consider a "Mobile Instructional Unit" (MIU) to be a "school bus." You wish to know whether Federal school bus safety standards apply to such a vehicle. You have asked, in addition , whether the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on hydraulic brakes applies to an MIU. It is my opinion that the MIU is not a school bus under the applicable Federal law and regulations and is thus not required to meet the school bus standards. If th e MIU is equipped with air brakes, it is not subject to the hydraulic brake standard.

The background information you provide explains that the MIU is a self-propelled unit built on a new or used school bus chassis. MIU's are "completely self-contained with all furnishings, (including desks for 10 pupils)." When an MIU is built with a used chassis, the Board of Education's contractor guts the interior of the bus and constructs a classroom facility within the shell. According to your letter, the MIU's are never used to transport pupils: "The empty vehicle is driven to the site by the contr actor where it is parked and then pupils and teacher enter the vehicle. At the end of the day after instruction, the pupils and teacher disembark and the empty vehicle is driven back to the garage by the contractor."

Our agency has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381-1431) to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles. We ave issued several standards which apply to School buses, a class of vehicle defined b y the Act as "likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary or secondary school students to or from schools or events related to such schools." (l5 U.S.C. 1391(14)) The bus from which an MIU is built would have had t o comply with the school bus standards at the time of its original manufacture. As long as a bus continues to be used as a school bus, the law does not allow a contractor to modify it in a way that takes it out of compliance with the school bus standards . (l5 U.S.C.

1397(a)(2)(A) However, if the bus is modified so that it will no longer be used to transport students, it ceases to be a school bus and does not have to continue to meet the standards applicable exclusively to school buses. In the case of the MIU, it see ms clear that the vehicle would no longer be suitable for transporting students to or from school. The MIU would thus not have to meet the school bus standards.

Although the school bus standards would not apply, the MIU would;d continue to be a motor vehicle and would continue to be subject to other standards under the Act. You have asked about the applicability of Standard No. 105, hydraulic Brakes. Since the b uses from which the MIU's are built were originally equipped with air brakes, the hydraulic brake standard would not apply to them. However, there is a separate standard for air braked vehicles, Standard No. 121, a copy of which I have enclosed. If the c ontractor built am MIU in a way that impaired the air brake system, he or she might be in violation of the Act. The contractor would also have to ensure that several other regulated safety systems -- the windshield wipers, the Driver's safety belt, etc. -- remained operative.

MIU's built with new chassis also fall outside the ambit of the Safety Act's school bus definition. Since they are not school buses under Federal law, the MIU's Are not subject to our school bus safety standards. However, the MIU's would be subject to ot her standards, including Standard No. 121 for air braked vehicles. The contractor should be able to inform you of the compliance of the vehicles with applicable Federal safety standards.

Since you may be interested in reviewing the standards which apply to vehicles such as the MIU, I have enclosed an information sheet that describes how you can obtain copies of our safety standards and other regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact me if you have further questions.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures

SEE HARD COPY FOR GRAPHIC INFORMATION)

April 24 1987 Mr. Stephen Oesch Chief Counsels Office National Highway Safety and Transportation Administration 400 - 7th Street, SW - Room 5219 Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Oesch: Pursuant to my letter of March 6, 1987 and our recent telephone conversation, I am enclosing a brochure depicting what a mobil classroom vehicle looks like.

Although the vehicle shown here was not adopted by the New York City Board of Education, the one actually in service has the same function and a similar interior layout. The only difference being that the vehicle in the brochure was remanufactured from a used school bus, while the vehicles presently employed by the Board of Education have a body which was built from scratch and placed on a 1986 school bus chassis.

Whether or not this type of vehicle can actually be considered a school bus is an essential aspect of my study and therefore I would appreciate such a determination from your office as soon as possible. Many thanks for your cooperation.

Sincerely, Allan Fogel Enclosure

Erika Jones Chief Counsel's Office National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

On June 3, 1986, the New York City Board of Education announced a plan to provide services to Chapter 1 sectarian school students in September, 1986. The plan provides that the sectarian school children in the Program will receive services of a nearby pu blic school. where there is no space in the public school, MIU's (Mobile instructional Units) will be leased to serve the sectarian school children. This plan was developed as a result of the July 1985 United States Supreme Court decision in Aquiler vs. Felton.

In order to carry out this plan, the New York City Board of Education prepared and advertised specifications for the leasing of MIU's, including drivers. The MlU specifications call for a self-propelled mobile instructional unit completely self-contained with all furnishings, (including desks for 10 pupils), installed generator, air-conditioning, heating and ventilating system. The specifications also call for a chassis which shall be 1977 or newer. The finished vehicle although it has a school chassis, has a custom built non-school bus body. These vehicles have been built and are now serving the New York City Board of Education.

The Comptroller's Office of the City or New York is conducting an audit of this contract as to the quality of construction and the safety regulations that apply to the vehicle. We are at an impasse however, because we are not sure if this vehicle can act ually be called a school bus and if the Federal Regulations of 1977 do in-fact apply.

The term Mobile Instructional Unit is actually a misnomer since pupils are not transported at all. The Empty vehicle is driven to the site by the contractor where it is parked and then pupils and teacher enter the vehicle. At the end of the day after Ins truction, the pupils and teacher disembark and the empty vehicle is driven back to the garage by the contractor. We were informed by thy New York State Department of Transportation that these vehicles are not certified and inspected every 6 months as are school buses that transport children.

In consideration of the above, the New Pork City Comptroller's Office would like your office to provide a ruling as to whether or not this type of vehicle can actually be considered a school bus, and whether or not any of the 1977 Federal safety standard s (DOT HS 805 674 revised April 1985) apply. We are specifically interested in Standard No. 105 which deals with hydraulic brakes and requires a split system. The vehicles in question have air brakes, so we would also like to know if the revised safety r egulations apply to any way to air brakes as well.

Thank you very much for your assistance.

Very truly yours, Allan Fogel field Supervisor (212) 566-6075

ID: nht87-2.57

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/23/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: M. Iwase -- Manager, Technical Administration Dept., Koito Mfg. Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. M. Iwase Manager, Technical Administration Dept. Koito Mfg. Co.. Ltd. Shizuoka Works 500, Kitawaki Shimizu-Shi, Shizuoka-ken Japan

Dear Mr. Iwase:

This is in reply to your letter of March 24, 1987, asking two questions with respect to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Your first question concerns an aiming adaptor for replaceable bulb headlamps whole lenses may slant 60 degrees from the vertical or horizontal. You have discovered that the Hopkins universal adaptor cannot be used with these headlamps, and you propose t o provide a special adaptor with each vehicle equipped with such headlamps, as well as aiming adjustment procedure information in the vehicle's service manual. You ask for confirmation of your belief that this is permissible under Standard No. 108.

Standard No. 108 does not require that an aiming adaptor be provided with a motor vehicle, only that its headlamps be capable of mechanical aim. Therefore there is no legal requirement that the adaptor be provided. However, without such an adaptor, an ow ner of a vehicle with the 60-degree headlamps may encounter difficulties at State inspection stations where mechanical aimers are in use, and at repair facilities when headlamps are replaced or after body work has been performed that necessitates reaim o f headlamps. Therefore we believe that provision of the adaptor and aiming information would enhance consumer acceptance of the 60-degree headlamps.

Your second question concerns the legality of the upper aiming boss on a low profile headlamp. Because the height of the lens is insufficient to incorporate the upper aiming boss, you propose to place it on a flange of the lens in a "photometrically inef fective area." However, the flange is concealed when the hood is shut, and the hood must be opened in order for aiming adjustment to occur. You believe that this is acceptable under Standard No. 108 and ask for our confirmation.

Paragraph S4.1.1.36(a)(2) requires that "the lens or each replaceable bulb headlamp shall have three pads which meet the requirements of figure 4...." Your drawing indicates that the flange is part of the headlamp lens even though that portion of the len s is not needed to provide illumination. Therefore this design would appear to meet the requirements of Figure 4 as you have concluded.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. 400 Seventh Ave., S. W. Washington D.C., 20590 USA

Dear Ms. E. Z. Jones

We would like to ask you the following question concerning aiming adjustment for bulb replacement headlamp.

RE: 1) Aiming Adaptor for 60o Slant Bulb Replaceable Headlamp

We are developing and engineering-designing of bulb replaceable headlamp whose lens slants up to about 60o in vertical and horizontal as shown below.

SEE HARD COPY FOR GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATION

Upon our technical review, we have come to conclusion that this headlamp would be able to meet with all of the requirements specified in FMVSS NO. 108.

This headlamp lens has three pads which meet the requirements of Figure 4, Group II Aiming Pad Location (prescribed for 1A1, 2A1 sealed beam unit) and is marked "22H62V" for aiming in accordance with S4.1.1.36-(a)(3) of FMVSS NO. 108.

This headlamp is designed, in accordance with S4.1.1.36(b)(3), so that it would be aimed by use of mechanical aimer specified in SAE J602C.

However, when this headlamp is installed onto the vehicle, the following inconvenience will come about to the aiming of this headlamp, we are afraid.

When user, dealer or vehicle inspection station try to perform aiming of this headlamp by use of the aimer specified in SAE J602C, the universal adaptor (Hopkin's smaller adaptor; stock #0203 - refer to the attached pamphlet) cannot be used onto this hea dlamp.

Because Hopkin's adaptor has the adjustable range in angle of suction cup which is limited within 35o max and adjustable length of legs within 4.0 in. max.

However, this headlamp requires 60o in its adjustable range and 6.2 in. in its adjustable length of legs.

For the above possible inconvenience, we have no other choice but to have each vehicle provided with a set of special adaptor for this headlamp (shown below) so that it could be made mechanical aiming adjustment by means of the aimer specified in SAE J60 2C, we think.

SEE HARD COPY FOR GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATION

The information of aiming adjustment procedures for this headlamp shall be put into vehicle service manual, we think.

Question-1):

We believe that this special adaptor and our countermeasure fully meet with FMVSS NO. 108 and have nothing illegal under FMVSS NO. 108.

We would like you to confirm that our interpretation is correct.

RE: 2) ARRANGEMENT OF AIMING BOSS FOR LOW PROFILE HEADLAMP

We are developing and engineering-designing such a low profile headlamp as the height of its lens is not enough to apply to the aiming boss arrangement in Fig. 4 of FMVSS NO. 108.

SEE HARD COPY FOR GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATION

Accordingly we have an idea to have aiming boss arranged as shown below.

SEE HARD COPY FOR GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATION

(1) The upper aiming boss is located on the flange of lens which is photometrically ineffective area.

(2) The aiming boss location is applied to Fig. 4 of FMVSS NO. 108.

(3) However, the upper boss is located in a part which is covered by the bonner and so the bonner must be opened when aiming adjustment is made.

Question-2):

We believe that the aiming boss arrangement as abovementioned can be applied to FMVSS NO. 108 and have nothing illegal under FMVSS NO. 108.

We would like you to review and confirm that it is correct.

Upon your review, your prompt reply to this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely

M. Iwase, Manager Technical Administration Dept. Koito Mfg. Co., Ltd. Shizuoka Works

Attached: Copy of Universal Adaptors Pamphlet

SEE HARD COPY FOR GRAPHIC AND ADDITIONAL TEXT INFORMATION

ID: nht87-2.58

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/27/87

FROM: CHARLOTTE E. O'NEIL

TO: ADMINISTRATOR -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 2-16-88, TO CHARLOTTE E. O'NEIL, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TEXT: Could you give me an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 101 (copy enclosed) which reads, in part, that the purpose of the standard is to "ensure the accessibility . . . of motor vehicle controls . . . in order to reduce the safety ha zards caused by . . . mistakes in selecting controls." Under S5.1, it states that the location of the controls must be where they are "operable by the driver" (while wearing a seat belt). It does not, however, say specifically that the controls must be placed where they can be reached comfortably, or that they cannot be placed somewhere that would tend to increase the possibility of the driver making a mistake in his or her selection of that particular control.

Therefore, with this wording, would you assume that any control that can be reached at all, even with difficulty, must be considered "operable"?

Perhaps the situation I am concerned about will help clarify my question:

I drive a school bus. My company recently acquired, through corporate merger, several buses that have the seat and the foot pedals lined up so that the seat is about four inches too far to the right. In order to reach the brake pedal I have to cross my right foot over my left. The clutch and accelerator are both moved over proportionately. On several occasions I have gone to hit the clutch and accidentally hit the brakes instead, (no big deal). Once, I missed the brakes completely when I went to put them on (somewhat bigger deal). My concern is that in an emergency situation, a child running in front of the bus, for example, that the driver would react spontaneously and go to slam on the brakes and accidentally hit the accelerator instead, whic h is located where you expect the brakes to be.

I asked my boss to move the seat so that the clutch/brakes/accelerator are in the place they usually are in relation to the seat (or more specifically, to the driver sitting on the seat.) He said he'd like to be able to make the adjustments

I asked for since nobody wants to drive the buses, anyway, but he can't because the manufacturer will not be liable for the structure of the bus if it is modified by the owner.

I looked up all the laws I could find on the subject and not one of them said, exactly, "You have to put the brakes in the right place." 49 CFR Ch. V 571.101 was the closest I could find. If Standard 101 was intended to forbid putting controls in dif ficult to reach locations, could you please state it unambiguously so I can ask a local inspector to check the buses for noncompliance? If not, is there any way I can get the law changed?

If you have any other information or know of any other laws relating to this I would appreciate it if you could let me know about them, too.

Thank you very much for whatever time or thought you give to me on this.