ID: 8807

Ms. Gail Lindsey
Hillsborough County Public Schools
Risk Management and Safety Department
707 East Columbus Drive
Tampa, FL 33602

Dear Ms. Lindsey:

Your letter of June 23, 1993, to Mr. Ron Engle of the office of Transportation Safety Programs, this agency, was referred to this office for reply.

You explained in your letter and in a telephone conversation with Walter Myers of this office that it has been your School Board's policy to prohibit the use of mini-vans to transport school children to and from special events, requiring instead the use of school buses. You stated that the policy is controversial among parents, however, resulting in the School Board reconsidering the issue. You therefore requested information on "crash safety standards" of mini-vans or any other recommendations we can provide to assist the school board in making a safe and fair determination in the matter.

For your information, enclosed are copies of letters to Senator Jim Sasser dated July 7, 1992; Rep. John J. Duncan, Jr. dated May 29, 1992; Mrs. Alice Collins, dated August 1, 1988; a pamphlet issued by this agency entitled Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations; a fact sheet issued by this office entitled Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations; and a copy of Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, referred to in the letter to Mr. Duncan.

The enclosed materials should answer your concerns in this matter. I would like to emphasize that, as explained in the materials, it is NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students. Despite the additional cost of these vehicles, I encourage Hillsborough County to give its most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting students in vehicles, such as mini-vans, that do not comply with school bus regulations.

Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:571 d:8/5/93

ID: aiam5324

"Dear Mr. Metz: This responds to your letter to this agency regarding new windshield wiper system you intend to develop for front windshields. I apologize for the delay in responding. The drawing you enclosed with your letter shows a wiper system consisting of one wiper arm and blade, as distinguished from the conventional systems consisting of two wiper arms and blades. Your wiper system takes different paths on the forward and the return strokes of the wiper cycle. Thus, as you stated in your letter, 'the vision areas are fulfilled only in the sum of forward and return movement.' You asked whether that is permissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems (copy enclosed), and if so, whether the minimum frequencies specified by FMVSS 104 apply to this wiper system. As explained below, the answer to both questions is yes. The essential feature of a windshield wiper system, from a safety standpoint, is its ability to clear a specific portion of the windshield. The number of wipers necessary to provide the driver with a sufficient field of view is not specified in FMVSS 104. Therefore, the number of wipers is immaterial so long as the minimum percentages of critical areas are cleared. The areas to be wiped are specified in paragraphs S4.1.2 and S4.1.2.1 of the standard. S4.1.2 establishes three windshield areas for passenger car windshields, designated as areas 'A', 'B', and 'C.' Each area is required to have a certain percentage of the glazing area wiped as shown in Figures 1 and 2 of SAE Recommended Practice J903a, May 1966 (copy enclosed), using the angles specified in Tables I, II, III, and IV of FMVSS 104, as applicable. Those tables apply to passenger cars of varying overall widths, namely, from less than 60 inches to more than 68 inches. The angles set forth in the tables vary according to the overall width of the vehicle. Finally, paragraph S4.1.2 provides that the percentage of each area required to be cleared must also be within the area bounded by a perimeter line on the glazing surface one inch from the edge of the daylight opening. With that background in mind, I will address your first question. FMVSS 104 does not specify whether the wiper needs to clear a windshield on either or both strokes. SAE Recommended Practice J903a, at paragraph 2.5, however, defines an effective wipe pattern as 'that portion of the windshield glazing surface which is cleaned when the wiper blade travels through a cycle) (emphasis added). A 'cycle' is defined in paragraph 2.14 of SAE Recommended Practice J903a as consisting of 'wiper blade movement during system operation from one extreme of the windshield wipe pattern to the other extreme and return' (emphasis added). It is NHTSA's opinion, therefore, that so long as the required windshield area is cleared by your wiper in a complete cycle, the requirements of paragraphs S4.1.2 and S4.1.2.1, FMVSS 104, have been met. As indicated above, your wiper system must comply with the minimum frequencies specified in section S4.1.1, Frequency, of FMVSS 104. That section requires that each windshield wiping system must have at least two frequencies or speeds. One must be at least 45 cycles per minute (cpm), regardless of engine load and speed. The other must be at least 20 cpm, also regardless of engine load and speed. In addition, the difference between the higher and lower speeds must be at least 15 cpm, regardless of engine load and speed. There are no exceptions to these frequency requirements, regardless of the number or design of the wiper arms comprising the system. Your letter did not indicate whether your wiper system is designed to be used on passenger cars or motor vehicles other than passenger cars, or both. Please note that section S2 of FMVSS 104, Application, provides that the standard applies to multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses in addition to passenger cars. All those vehicles are required to have power-driven windshield wiping systems that meet the frequency requirements of section S4.1.1. The wiped area requirements of S4.1.2, however, apply only to passenger cars. I hope this information will be helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures";

ID: Winbel_scooter_v5

Amir Ambar
Winbel, Inc.
6231 McLeod Drive # E
Las Vegas, NV 89120

Dear Mr. Ambar:

This responds to the interpretation request sent to us by Alan Schnitzer, Esq. on your behalf, asking if a scooter you are attempting to import into the United States is a "motor vehicle" for the purposes of the regulations administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). As explained below, it is our opinion that the scooter is not a motor vehicle.

The legislation establishing NHTSAs vehicle safety authority is set out at 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301. Under 49 U.S.C. 30112, a person may not import into the United States, "any motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter takes effect unless the vehicle or equipment complies with the standard[.]" "Motor vehicle" is defined at 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6) as:

[A] vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.

When determining if a vehicle is manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads and highways, the agency will first look to see if the vehicle has on-road capabilities.

In an October 3, 1969, notice, the agency determined that while "mini-bikes" have on-road operating capabilities, they are not motor vehicles for the purpose of our standards. (34 Federal Register 15416; enclosed) At that time the agency found that "mini-bikes" were precluded from operation on public roads by a vast majority of States. The agency has determined this to still hold true. Further, "mini-bikes" were at that time promoted and advertised solely for off-road use.

The scooter that you are seeking to import was described as a "toy" intended for off-road use only. The literature submitted stated that the maximum speed of the scooter ranges between 12.5 and 16 miles per hour (mph). The scooter is shown to have an engine displacement of 36 cc, a height of 33 inches, and wheel diameters of ten and nine inches (front and rear, respectively). The owners manual and a label on the scooter warn against operating the scooter on public roads.

Based on the description provided, including its speed capabilities and small size, we conclude that the "scooter" you are seeking to import is properly characterized as a "mini-bike," and therefore is not a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of Chapter 301. The scooters low speed capability would prohibit it from being operated in normal moving traffic. This is reflected in the warning label. Further, the low sitting height and small wheel diameters are comparable if not smaller than those of the mini-bikes considered under the 1969 notice. While your scooter could theoretically be operated on public roads, we anticipate that because of its small size and absence of a Vehicle Identification Number (VIN), which is generally required by States for vehicles authorized to operate on public roads, incidents of its actual operation on public streets, roads, and highways will be comparatively rare. We recognize that the scooter is equipped with a headlight, horn, turn signals, and a mirror. While this equipment may be seen as equipping the scooter for road use, we note that this equipment is also sometimes present on bicycles and other non-motor vehicles as well.

While we have concluded at this time that the scooter you are seeking to import is not a motor vehicle, we may re-evaluate our determination if we were to receive additional information indicating that the scooter (or similar ones) were being used on public roads on more than an incidental basis, the scooter were to be advertised for use on public roads, or the characteristics of the imported scooters were not consistent with the descriptions provided.

If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:571.3#597
d.11/26/03

ID: nht93-5.51

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 5, 1993 EST

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by Kenneth N. Weinstein

TO: Gail Lindsey -- Hillsborough County Public Schools, Risk Management and Safety Department, Tampa, Florida

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/23/93 from Gail Lindsey to Ron Engles (OCC 8807)

TEXT:

Your letter of June 23, 1993, to Mr. Ron Engle of the office of Transportation Safety Programs, this agency, was referred to this office for reply.

You explained in your letter and in a telephone conversation with Walter Myers of this office that it has been your School Board's policy to prohibit the use of mini-vans to transport school children to and from special events, requiring instead the use of school buses. You stated that the policy is controversial among parents, however, resulting in the School Board reconsidering the issue. You, therefore requested information on "crash safety standards" of mini-vans or any other recommendations we can provide to assist the school board in making a safe and fair determination in the matter.

For your information, enclosed are copies of letters to Senator Jim Sasser dated July 7, 1992; Rep. John J. Duncan, Jr. dated May 29, 1992; Mrs. Alice Collins, dated August 1, 1988; a pamphlet issued by this agency entitled Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations; a fact sheet issued by this office entitled Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations; and a copy of Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, referred to in the letter to Mr. Duncan.

The enclosed materials should answer your concerns in this matter. I would like to emphasize that, as explained in the materials, it is NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students. Despite the additional cost of these vehicles, I encourage Hillsborough County to give its most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting students in vehicles, such as mini-vans, that do not comply with school bus regulations.

Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: aiam5260

Dear Mr. Paradis: This responds to your FAX of November 18, 1993 requesting a clarification of our letter of November 16 as it applies to the rear of the trailers shown in items; 5 and 7 which accompanied your letter of August 31, 1993. As we advised yo with respect to rear markings, Standard No. 108 requires a horizontal strip of retroreflective sheeting across the full width of the trailer. With respect to the trailer shown in; 7, retroreflective tape can be applied across the full width of th 'approach ramp' to meet the requirements since the ramp will be in the down position when the trailer is moving. As we further advised you, paragraph S5.7.1.3(b) anticipates that the length of the color segments may have to be modified to facilitate using material near rear lamps. In the worst cases of trailers with rear surfaces no wider than the minimum required for lamps, breaks in the rear treatment are unavoidable to clear the lamps. But NHTSA expects the manufacturer to minimize the breaks by using red material adjacent to red lamps. With respect to; 5, we recommend applying red/white conspicuity treatment on either sid of the identification lamps, with red material used in the remaining outboard areas. I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely John Womack Acting Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam0126

Dear Mr. Tydings: Thank you for your letter of November 19, 1968, to Mr. E. Leysath o this Bureau, concerning a clarification of the requirements of paragraph S3.4.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; As you indicated, paragraph S3.4.3 of initial Standard No. 108, whic was published in the *Federal Register* on February 3, 1967, required that tail lamps, license plate lamps, and side marker lamps be illuminated when the headlamps are illuminated. The effective date of the initial standard was January 1, 1968. However, on December 16, 1967, an amendment to the initial standard was published in the *Federal Register*. This amendment delayed the effective date of paragraph S3.4.3 until May 1, 1968, and in addition revised that paragraph to require, as a minimum, that the fail (sic) lamps be illuminated when the headlamps are illuminated. Therefore, the requirements of paragraph S3.4.3 were not applicable to vehicles manufactured during the period of January 1, 1968 through April 30, 1968. During that period, selection of the lamp switching arrangement was at the option of the vehicle manufacturer.; Thank you for writing. Sincerely, Charles A. Baker, Office of Standards on Accident Avoidance Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service;

ID: 2792o

Mrs. Alice Collins
703 Cohassett Ave.
Lake Wales, FL 33853

Dear Mrs. Collins:

This is a response to your letter of January 15, 1988. I apologize for the delay in responding to your letter. In your letter, you described yourself as a parent of school-age children, and as a volunteer who drives children to school-related activities in your 1986 Plymouth Voyager mini-van. You stated that in the 1986-1987 school year, the U.S. Department of Transportation decided that Voyager Mini-Vans were "unsafe." You go on to say that "the classification of M.P.V. was used on all mini-vans," and suggest that it is a mistake to characterize your Voyager as a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV) because it is more like a passenger car than a truck. You concluded by asking us to change the decision that the Plymouth Voyager mini-van is unsafe. You raised other concerns in telephone conversations with Joan Tilghman, a member of my staff. First, I will address the request in your letter that the Department change what you believe is a decision concerning the safety of your vehicle. Then, I will address the matters you raised in conversations with Ms. Tilghman.

Let me begin by assuring you that the agency has never stated that the Plymouth Voyager is "unsafe." Except in the context of a specific enforcement proceeding, NHTSA does not make blanket determinations that vehicles are "safe" or "unsafe." Instead, we establish safety standards, and manufacturers must certify that each of their vehicles complies with all applicable standards. If we determine that a group of vehicles fails to comply with an applicable standard, or that a group of vehicles contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety, we order the manufacturer to recall the vehicles. Again, we make these determinations only in the context of an enforcement proceeding. There has been no such proceeding with respect to the 1986 Plymouth Voyager.

With respect to your suggestion that it was a mistake to classify the Voyager as an MPV, it is the manufacturer's responsibility to determine, in the first instance, what a vehicle's classification should be. Chyrsler has classified the Voyager as an MPV, and so must certify that the Voyager meets all Federal safety standards applicable to that vehicle class. We have no information which suggests that Chrysler's classification of the Voyager is incorrect under our classification criteria.

In your conversations with Ms. Tilghman, you explained that the Tallahassee, Florida school district will not permit parents to transport school children to school-sponsored or school-related events in MPVs, such as the Voyager. However, you stated that the district will permit parents to transport children to school-sponsored or school-related events in passenger cars. You said that the school district is following a recommendation by this agency that Florida school districts not condone transporting children to school-related events in buses other than certified school buses. Your understanding is that NHTSA made this recommendation to the State of Florida in an April 25, 1986 letter to Mr.Arnold Spencer, and repeated the recommendation in an August 7, 1986 letter to Mr. Larry McEntire. I have enclosed copies of both letters for your information.

As you see, NHTSA made no such recommendation in either letter. Instead, we explained that we do not regulate the use of vehicles by owners, nor do we require the use of particular vehicles for particular purposes. There is no Federal prohibition against vehicle owners using their own vehicles to transport school children to school-related events. We also noted that the individual States have authority to establish any such regulations, in accordance with the principles of federalism set out in our Constitution. The State of Florida had already made its own decision to adopt and implement this policy before we were contacted by either Mr.Spencer or Mr. McEntire on this subject. Any changes to that policy would also reflect a decision by the State of Florida, not the Federal government.

In the letter to Mr. Spencer, we made the observation that Florida's policy that school boards not condone transporting school children in vehicles that are not certified as complying with our school bus safety standards, "is consistent with our belief that school buses certified to our school bus safety standards are the safest means of transportation for school children." This was not a recommendation to the State of Florida, but a statement of our belief about the superior safety afforded to school children by buses that are certified as complying with our school bus standards. That belief continues to be supported by data showing that school buses continue to have one of the lowest fatality rates for any class of motor vehicle. Large school buses are the safest form of ground transportation in the United States because the passenger seats are "compartmentalized" (special seat padding and spacing, and high seat backs); and because of the vehicle's size and weight (which generally reduce an occupant's exposure to injury-threatening crash forces), the drivers' training and experience, and the extra care other motorists usually take when they are near a school bus.

I am sending you information on the agency's New Car Assessment Program (NCAP). NCAP is an experimental program in which we test light-duty vehicles, MPVs among them, to see how well they perform in a high-speed crash. You will find test results for vehicles that NHTSA has tested over the past few years, including results for the 1984 and 1987 Plymouth Voyager. Also, you will find the agency's April, 1988 report to Congress titled, "Safety Programs for Light Trucks and Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles."

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Joan F. Tilghman, of my staff, at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:VSA#571 d:8/1/88

ID: aiam0881

Dear Mr. Dershko: This is in response to your requests of July 12 and August 25, 1972 for interpretations of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. I regret the delay in our response.; *S5.1.2* Minimum Surface Dimensions The installation of a metal bar across the rear corner windows so tha the minimum surface dimension between the bar and the edge of the glazing would be less than 8 inches would exclude the window from the window retention requirements of S5.1, as you suggest.; *S5.3.2* Emergency Exit Release The motion of the release mechanism, which you clarified in a telephon conversation on October 13 with Mr. Kevin Cavey of the Motor Vehicle Programs staff at NHTSA, meets the directional and clearance requirements of S5.3.2, since the initial motion is perpendicular to the exit surface and the required 2-inch clearance is afforded during the operation of the mechanism.; *S5.5.2* Emergency Exit Identification You are correct in your assumption that normal nighttime illuminatio may include reading lights and that it is not the intent of the standard to require self-illuminated exit identification.; *Figure 3* Access Regions for Exits Without Adjacent Seats You are correct in assuming that Figure 3B requires a 2-inch clearanc around the release mechanism and is not intended to specify the required outline for a rear shelf.; Sincerely yours, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4695

Dear Mr. Maeda: This is in reply to your letter of September 28, l990 requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Table IV of the standard establishes a minimum 'edge to edge separation distance' between turn signal lamps and tail or stop lamps installed on motorcycles. You have asked whether the edge in question is the outer edge of the lamp assembly itself, or the edge of the reflector in the lamp. The minimum edge to edge separation distance is measured from the edge of the illuminated surface of one lamp to another, that is to say, from the edge of the effective projected luminous area of one lens to the edge of the effective projected luminous area of the other. It is unclear from the drawing you enclosed of the 'tail/brake lamp' whether the edge of its effective projected luminous area of the lens is at the edge of the reflector, or at the edge of the lamp (as appears to be the case with the 'turn signal'). If the former, the distance is measured between the edge of the tail/stop lamp reflector to the edge of the turn signal lamp assembly as you have initially indicated. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam3784

Dear Mr. Sweeney: This responds to your letter of November 22, 1983, regarding th application of Safety Standard No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208) to the new Kubvan minivan you intend to manufacture and distribute. You state in your letter that the Kubvan is a minivan designed primarily for delivery and utility service. You ask whether the Kubvan must be equipped with a lap and shoulder belt protection under S4.2.2.2 of the standard.; You state that Grumman Olson has built both left hand and right han drive models of the Kubvan. The right hand drive models are intended for use by the United States Postal Service (USPS). You add that Grumman Olson also plans to sell right hand vehicles to any and all interested customers.; Section 4.2.2.2 requires trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less t provide a lap and shoulder belt protection system, except for those 'vehicles designed to be exclusively sold to the United States Postal Service.' As correctly stated in your letter, all Kubvans sold to customers other than the USPS must be equipped with a lap and shoulder belt assembly. However, based on the intent of S4.2.2.2 and the unique operating needs of the USPS, right hand Kubvans sold to the USPS need only be equipped with a lap belt system.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel