ID: nht74-2.36

DATE: 05/06/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Questor Juvenile Products Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 9, 1974, petition to substitute the proposed performance requirements for child harness testing under Standard No. 213, Child seating systems, for the performance requirements of Standard No. 209, Seat belt assemblies, to which Questor's Model 275 child harness is presently subject. As reasons for the substitution, you cite the inappropriateness of attachment hardware requirements (S4.3(c)) and the configuration of the test device (Figure 7) of Standard No. 209 as well as the desirability of testing to dynamic performance requirements which may become a part of Standard No. 213.

The Standard No. 213 dynamic test values which you recommend are only proposals at this time. Interested parties have not had a full opportunity to comment on them and the NHTSA has not, of course, had the opportunity to fully evaluate them. For these reasons your petition to substitute these new dynamic tests for the Standard No. 209 static tests is denied.

You state that testing of the Model 275 to the assembly performance requirements of Standard No. 209 (S4.4(c)) is complicated by the configuration of the test device for Type III harnesses, which is not suited to test a child harness such as the Questor No. 275 that utilizes the adult front lap belts and the rear adult lap belt or the package shelf as attachment points.

Paragraph S5.3(c)(2) of Standard No. 209 directs that in such a case "attachment shall be . . . in accordance with the [manufacturer's] installation instructions". As adherence to Model 275 installation instructions requires a front and rear adult belt installation (and in some cases a package shelf) the use of an actual vehicle bench seat in a passenger car would be an appropriate method to evaluate the assembly under S4.4(c) of Standard No. 209. Moreover, because the 12-inch extension requirement for an assembly tested under S4.4(c) is based on zero deflection of the test device, the actual vehicle seat should be modified to eliminate deflection.

The NHTSA has previously determined that the requirements of S4.3(c) of Standard No. 209 do not apply to bolts used to secure an adult upper torso restraint, other than the continuous loop type. Similarly, we interpret this provision not apply to the child harness upper torso restraint described in your letter. The bolts would be regulated with respect to strength only by the assembly performance requirements of S4.4(c).

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

April 9, 1974

Richard B. Dyson -- Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Dear Mr. Dyson:

Questor Corporation has recently developed a novel child restraint harness that is to be marketed under the brand name "Infanseat Model 275 Child Restraint Harness." This restraint system has been under development for over two years to provide maximum dynamic performance at least possible cost to the consumer.

The Infanseat Model 275 Child Restraint Harness has closely approached the dynamic performance objectives proposed by the DOT to be effective September 1, 1975. When tested with a standard Sierra three-year-old child dummy, this restraint limited head excursion to 18.8 inches in a 30 mph frontal barrier impact test. Additional improvements in design have been made which will further reduce head excursion.

The unique design characteristics of this harness, which provide exceptional dynamic performance, also present difficulties in determining its compliance with FMVSS 209 for Type 3 seat belt assemblies. These problems were discussed with Messrs. R. Jasinski, J. Gilkey, T. Herlihy, and M. Peskoe during a personal visit to Washington on April 4. Mr. Jasinski also reviewed the situation in a phone conversation with Mr. R. Hitchcock. It was suggested after these conversations that this letter be written to you, outlining the areas of concern relative to FMVSS 209.

The design of Infanseat Model 275 Child Restraint Harness departs radically from child harnesses commercially available to date. Current harnesses require mounting to the floor of the automobile to restrain the child and vehicle seat back from movement during impact or load. Inasmuch as this floor anchorage could inadvertently be used by the present automobile owner or subsequent owners for an adult lap belt attachment point, it is understandable that FMVSS 209 would require the strength of this anchorage to be no less than 5,000 pounds, paragraph S4.3 (c) (1).

It is further recognized that currently available child harnesses loop over the adult backrest of automobiles, prior to being themselves anchored to the vehicle floor, and thus largely rely upon the strength of the automobile backrest to reduce movement of the child in an accident situation and/or also restrain the backrest. The assembly performance criteria of FMVSS 209 paragraphs S5.3 (c) (1) through (4) provide some degree of simulating this installation, and yet the force requirement that the complete assembly is required to withstand is 2,000 pounds, 100 per cent greater than the force requirements of FMVSS 213.

The Model 275 Child Harness is shown in accompanying Figures 1 and 2. The significant differences in its installation when compared with existing harnesses are readily apparent.

Firstly, an adult lap belt is used to position the lower portion of the child's harness both laterally and forwardly. Secondly, a back strap, or upper tie-down, connects the child harness at the shoulder strap area to either a rear seat adult lap belt for a front seat installation (Figure 1) in an automobile or to a supplementary anchor installed in the metal portion of the panel between the seat back and the rear window for rear seat installation (Figure 2). Neither the front nor rear seat installations require changes or additions to anchorages at the vehicle floor.

The viability of the upper tie-down attachment has been dynamically demonstrated by a well-known child seating restraint system that not only must restrain the child but also the child seating system itself. The upper tie-down strap most nearly approximates the function of an adult shoulder strap; that is, it keeps the upper torso from pivoting forward in a frontal impact. FMVSS 209 does not specify minimum force requirements for either Type 2, Type 2a, or Type 3 upper torso restraint attachment hardware.

It is suggested, therefore, that the requirements within FMVSS 209 for attachment hardware are neither clear nor appropriate for the Infanseat harness. In addition, the test method for assembly performance does not provide for the recommended installation of this product.

While attempts could be made to modify the simulated seat back shown in Figure 7 of FMVSS 209 to provide for the installation of the Infanseat harness, it is felt that any modification will not adequately reporduce the distribution of forces encountered in real-world situations. Also, any approved simulated static load test of a complete assembly at this time is not felt to be appropriate with dynamic testing of child harnesses soon to be required.

It is respectfully suggested that rather than subject the DOT to possible adverse public criticism by requesting another static test to determine the adequacy of the complete Infanseat harness assembly, it be excluded from the attachment hardware and complete assembly requirements of FMVSS 209. In lieu of these requirements, the Infanseat harness should be required to prevent head excursion of a Sierra three-year-old test device beyond 18 inches in a simulated 30 mph frontal impact test. The Infanseat harness would thus be required to meet the DOT's proposed dynamic performance requirements for child restraints.

Data substantiating the dynamic performance of the Infanseat harness has been independently verified by tests conducted for Consumers Union on prototype harnesses. These tests were not published by CU because the harnesses were not available commercially when their magazine went to press. Additional tests have been conducted to determine the suitability of various materials, installations, and test devices. Significant improvements to the harness are expected to be made, such that it appears likely in the very near future to provide dynamic protection for six-year-old children within the proposed excursion limits desired by the DOT.

As important as the Infanseat harness's dynamic performance is its expected retail selling price. The DOT and child restraint manufacturers are equally concerned that children's restraint devices be affordable by the largest possible segment of the public. It is recognized that the purchase and, therefore, the eventual use of children's restraints are directly related to their cost. The Infanseat harness is expected to be marketed at one-half to one-third of the price of existing restraint systems.

Thank you for your attention to this request for revised interim requirements that would be applicable to the Infanseat harness, and your early response shall be greatly appreciated. It is understood that this product would automatically be required to comply with the proposed revisions to FMVSS 213 when they become effective.

Yours very truly,

QUESTOR JUVENILE PRODUCTS COMPANY;

J. P. Koziatek, P.E. #E-36338 -- Director, Technical Services

Attachments

cc: R. Hitchcock; T. W. Herlihy; M. P. Peskoe; J. C. Gilkey; R. Jasinski

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 7739

A. Mary Schiavo
Inspector General for
the Department of Transportation
Room 9210
400 Seventh Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Schiavo:

Special Agent Gerard H. Tucker, Jr. of your staff asked me to provide you with some information about the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's regulations dealing with certification and vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. This information should prove helpful in connection with an investigation of Bus Industries of America by your office in which Mr. Tucker has been involved.

Mr. Tucker presented the following facts. A Canadian company (Ontario Bus Industries, Inc.) manufactured some buses at its plant in Canada. It certified these buses as conforming with all U.S. vehicle safety standards and affixed a label to that effect, in accordance with 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. These buses were then imported into the United States bearing the certification label that had been affixed by the Canadian manufacturer. After the vehicles were imported into the United States, the U.S. company that had imported the buses (Bus Industries of America) removed the Canadian manufacturer's certification label and affixed a new certification label that identified the U.S. company as the manufacturer of these buses. With respect to the information other than the name of the manufacturer, the certification label substituted by the importer was identical to the certification label affixed by the Canadian manufacturer.

Mr. Tucker asked us to explain this agency's certification regulations as they apply to vehicles manufactured in two or more stages, and to comment on the assertion that the certification label placed on the buses by the Canadian manufacturer did not meet this agency's certification requirements. I am pleased to have this opportunity to do so.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 includes the following provision at 15 U.S.C. 1403:

Every manufacturer or distributor of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment shall furnish to the distributor or dealer at the time of delivery of such vehicle or equipment by such manufacturer or distributor the certification that each such vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. * * * In the case of a motor vehicle such certification shall be in the form of a label or tag permanently affixed to such motor vehicle.

NHTSA has issued a regulation (49 CFR Part 567) specifying the content and location of, and other requirements for, the vehicle certification label or tag required by this statutory provision. That regulation is relatively straightforward with respect to vehicles produced by a single manufacturer. The manufacturer must permanently affix a label containing specified information, including the name of the manufacturer, the date of manufacture, the vehicle identification number, and a certification that the vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, in a specified location on the vehicle.

The certification regulation becomes more complex in the case of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages and certified vehicles that are altered before they have been sold to the public for the first time. In those situations, there is more than one manufacturer's input needed for the certification of the finished vehicle. Accordingly, NHTSA has included special provisions in Part 567 specifying the certification requirements for these vehicles and adopted a separate regulation at 49 CFR Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages, specifying the responsibilities of the various manufacturers in ensuring conformity of the completed vehicle with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

With respect to the Canadian buses described by Mr. Tucker, those vehicles appear to fall into the category of vehicles produced by a single manufacturer. The relevant certification requirements for such vehicles are set forth at 49 CFR 567.4. It appears that the Canadian company in this case followed those requirements and affixed a label in accordance with 567.4.

Mr. Tucker indicated that Bus Industries of America had argued that it was required to affix its own certification label for two different reasons. First, for some of these buses, Bus Industries of America had produced various component subassemblies (e.g., frame, drivetrain, etc.) and shipped those component subassemblies to Canada to be used in manufacturing these buses. Because of this, Bus Industries of America argued that it had to certify the vehicles in its capacity as the manufacturer of the incomplete vehicle.

It is true that 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568 impose responsibilities on incomplete vehicle manufacturers, and even allow incomplete vehicle manufacturers to assume legal responsibility for the completed vehicle. See 567.5(e) and 568.7(a). However, a party that ships various component subassemblies to another party would not be an incomplete vehicle manufacturer for purposes of NHTSA's certification regulations. The following definitions appear in 568.3:

Incomplete vehicle manufacturer means a person who manufactures an incomplete vehicle by assembling components none of which, taken separately, constitute an incomplete vehicle.

Incomplete vehicle means an assemblage consisting, as a minimum, of frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations, other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed vehicle.

Reading these definitions, it is apparent that a party could not be considered an incomplete vehicle manufacturer if that party simply produced certain component subsystems and shipped those subsystems off to another party to assemble into a motor vehicle. Based on the facts Mr. Tucker provided this office, the claim that Bus Industries of America should be considered an incomplete vehicle manufacturer of these buses has no merit.

Second, Mr. Tucker indicated that Bus Industries of America argued that it had to certify some of these buses because that company had performed minor finishing operations on some buses after it received them from Canada. It may be that Bus Industries of America is suggesting that it should be considered to be a final stage manufacturer of these vehicles, and therefore was responsible for certifying these vehicles per 49 CFR 567 and 568. Alternatively, Bus Industries of America may have been suggesting that it should be considered an alterer of these vehicles, and therefore required to certify them. Neither one of these arguments is supported by the facts.

A final stage manufacturer is defined at 49 CFR 568.3 as "a person who performs such manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a completed vehicle." The relevant question then is whether these buses were incomplete vehicles. As specified in the definition of "incomplete vehicle" quoted above, a vehicle that needs only minor finishing operations is not considered an incomplete vehicle. Instead, only those vehicles that need some further manufacturing operations to perform their intended function are considered incomplete vehicles. Since the buses in question had been certified by the Canadian manufacturer as completed vehicles and driven over the public roads from the Canadian plant to the U.S., there is no indication that the buses needed some further manufacturing operations to perform their intended function. Hence, Bus Industries of America was not a final stage manufacturer of those vehicles.

To the extent that Bus Industries of America wishes to be considered an alterer of a previously certified vehicle, 49 CFR 567.6 expressly sets forth requirements for persons that alter vehicles by performing minor finishing operations. That section provides: "A person ... who alters such a vehicle only by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, in such a manner that the vehicle's stated weight ratings are still valid, need not affix a label to the vehicle, but shall allow a manufacturer's label that conforms to the requirements of this part to remain affixed to the vehicle." The sample of the Canadian manufacturer's certification label that Mr. Tucker provided this office conforms to the requirements of Part 567. Hence, even if one accepts the argument by Bus Industries of America that it performed minor finishing operations on previously certified vehicles, it would have still been subject to an express regulatory duty to leave the Canadian manufacturer's certification label in place.

The final point I understand Bus Industries of America to be raising was that only a U.S. manufacturer could certify that a vehicle met the U.S. safety standards. This point is incorrect. A vehicle to be imported into the U.S. must be certified as conforming with all U.S. safety standards before it enters the United States. Such a certification is routinely made by manufacturers headquartered outside of the United States. There is no regulation or law administered by this agency that requires the certification to be made only by a U.S. company.

I hope this information is useful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on this subject, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

cc: Special Agent Gerard Tucker DOT Office of Inspector General Linpro Center 900 E. 8th Avenue Suite 201 King of Prussia, PA 19406

ref:567#568#VSA d:10/23/92

ID: nht90-2.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 24, 1990

FROM: JERRY RALPH CURRY

TO: D. H. BURNEY -- AMBASSADOR OF CANADA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 3-16-90 TO JERRY R. CURRY, NHTSA, FROM D. H. BURNEY, AMBASSADOR OF CANADA TEXT:

Thank you for your letter of March 16, 1990, expressing the concern of your country about this agency's new regulations on importation of motor vehicles and equipment.

Canada is concerned that, under P.L. 100-562, the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988, Canadian vehicle brokers, dealers, and private citizens will not, for all practical purposes, be able to export new or used Canadian market vehicles to the United States. It is concerned further that Canadian individuals and firms will be precluded from providing conformance goods and services for vehicles exported to the United States. Canada therefore requests that this agency modify its regulations wit h respect to Canadian market vehicles, recognizing their near-compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, and accommodating their entry in the least costly and burdensome manner. You have five specific requests, and I shall address each.

Preliminarily, I want to note several things. First, my assurance that this agency gave very careful consideration to the concerns of Transport Canada in adopting final regulations under the 1988 Act, as well as those expressed by Canadian companies tha t commented on the proposed regulations. As we noted in the notices proposing and adopting those regulations, our discretion to make changes in the regulations was narrowly circumscribed in many instances by the detailed language of that Act. On a more technical level, I want to note that your understanding of our new regulations expressed in paragraphs (a) through (g) on page 2 of your letter is essentially correct. However, with respect to your paragraph (d), please note that determinations of vehi cle eligibility for importation may also be made by me as Administrator on my own initiative, and need not be pursuant to a petition. Also, as to paragraph (e), I would like to point out that the bond processing fee, proposed to be *$125, is only $4.35 (however, under paragraph (f) the bond is not less than 150 percent of the dutiable value of the vehicle).

Your first request is that the agency "recognize Canadian market vehicles as a special class of non-complying vehicles requiring only minor changes to meet the FMVSS." The 1988 Act was enacted on October 31, 1988, and became effective January 31, 1990. I regret to say that none of its provisions authorize the agency to directly distinguish between non-complying vehicles of Canadian manufacture and those originating in other countries.

However, the eligibility provisions that you reference in paragraph (d) do permit a basis for minimizing some of the burden that the 1988 Act imposes. We begin with the premise that if a Canadian vehicle has not been certified by its manufacturer as in conformance with U.S. standards, then it cannot be presumed to conform in all respects to the U.S. standards. Canadian and U.S. safety standards do differ in some ways (e.g., mandatory automatic crash protection for U.S. market passenger cars manufactur ed on and after September 1, 1989). Nevertheless, we believe that enough similarity may exist to support a finding that a Canadian passenger car is "substantially similar" to a U.S. passenger car, justifying a determination that it is eligible for impor tation into the United States, and capable of conversion to meet U.S. safety standards. Further, such a finding may be made on our own initiative. I am pleased to inform you that NHTSA is publishing a notice of tentative determination that would cover a ll passenger cars certified as meeting the Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, and that were manufactured up to September 1, 1989. A copy of the notice is enclosed for your reference. After receiving and considering public comment, we will make a final decision on this matter. If we decide to adopt our tentative determination as a final determination, your first request would, in effect, be granted.

Your second request is that we "exempt such vehicles from the fees." These fees are the ones mentioned in paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of your letter, the registered importer annual registration fee, the vehicle eligibility petition fee, and the bond pro cessing fee. Each fee is specifically required by the 1988 Act, and must be established in advance of the fiscal year in which it is effective. The registered importer fee is required to cover agency costs for administration of the registration program . The vehicle eligibility fee is required to cover the agency's costs in making and publishing eligibility determinations. The bond processing fee is required to reimburse the U.S. Customs Service for its costs in processing the agency's conformance bo nd that accompanies each nonconforming vehicle. Congress provided no authority to waive these fees, or to modify them during the fiscal year that they are in effect. Thus, the fees that have been established must remain in effect until October 1, 1990.

When we begin the review that will lead to next year's fees, we shall be happy to consider whether some provision may be made for Canadian market vehicles. In the meantime, I would like to point out that under our notice of tentative determination on el igibility of Canadian vehicles, the fee of $1,560 would cover the blanket determination of all passenger cars, and would not be applied to each individual model and model year of passenger car. This action would effectively moot Canada's second request that Canadian market passenger cars be exempted from the determination fee.

Canada's third request is to "exempt them from the bonding requirement." The 1988 Act requires the importer of a non-conforming vehicle to furnish an appropriate bond to ensure that the vehicle will be brought into compliance, or will be exported or aban doned to the United States. This is not a new requirement; ever since January 1, 1968, each nonconforming vehicle, Canadian or otherwise, has been required to be accompanied by a conformance bond upon its entry into the United States. The 1988 Act prov ides us with no authority to exempt Canadian vehicles, and does not distinguish degrees of nonconformity. Therefore, we believe that we are unable to grant Canada's request, absent specific authorization by the U.S. Congress.

The fourth request is to "exempt them from the requirement that they be imported by registered importers, who must be U.S. citizens." This request raises two issues: whether Canadian market cars may be imported by persons other than registered importers , and whether registered importers must be U.S. citizens. As to the first issue, the 1988 Act does allow one alternative to direct importation by a registered importer. That is, a person other than a registered importer may import a nonconforming vehicl e if he has a contract with a registered importer to perform conformance work. This would allow a Canadian citizen to import a Canadian market car, without himself becoming a registered importer.

The second issue is whether a Canadian company is permitted to be a registered importer. We believe that a registered importer is a person who is physically present in the territory in which importation occurs, as opposed to an exporter, who is outside t hat territory. While we are not conversant with the laws of the individual States, we believe that a Canadian company could qualify to do business within an individual State, and become a registered importer. Thus, it is not necessary to be a U.S. "citiz en", but it is necessary to be subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The 1988 Act requires the registered importer regulation to contain requirements for recordkeeping, and inspection of records and facilities. Since the jurisdiction of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act does not extend beyond the boundaries of the United States, we believe that it would be difficult to enforce our provisions on inspection of premises, documents, etc. in the territory of another country.

This brings us to your fifth and final request, that we "allow modifications to be done in either the United States or Canada." Under current regulations, conformance work is permitted to be performed outside the united States. However, vehicles modifi ed in this fashion must be admitted under the same procedures as if they had not been modified. This allows the agency to review the documents on pre-importation conversion work, to ensure that it has been satis- factorily accomplished, before the confo rmance bond is released. Accordingly, we believe that the concern underlying this request has already been accommodated.

If, after reviewing this letter, you have further suggestions for reducing the burdens that the new law may have imposed on importations of Canadian-manufactured vehicles, I would be happy to consider them.

Enclosure

ID: nht88-2.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/29/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Derek Nash -- Artech Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 1/14/76 letter from Richard B. Dyson To Tom Welland

TEXT:

Mr. Derek Nash Artech Corporation 2901 Telestar Court Falls Church, VA 22042

This responds to your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and follows up on the April 1, 1988 telephone conversation with Ms. Hom of my staff in which additional information augmenting your letter was provided. I apologiz e for the delay in responding.

In your letter, you said that you are refurbishing a type of passenger vehicle that has first produced 20 years ago. Your letter raises questions about Federal requirements for persons modifying used vehicles which I will address in the latter part of th is letter and about Federal requirements for the design of the vehicle's chassis.

Before I address your specific questions, I would like to provide some background information on our regulations and safety standards. NHTSA has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed) to issue motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of new vehicles or equipment must certify that their products conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. NHTSA also has the authority to in vestigate safety-related defects in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. If a manufacturer or the agency determines that the manufacturer's product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the product and remedy the defect free of charge.

It is not clear from the information which you have provided us whether the vehicle you are refurbishing would be treated as a new or used vehicle under the Safety Act. A vehicle with a new body and new chassis would be a new vehicle required to meet the standards in effect on the day that manufacture of the vehicle is completed. A vehicle with a new body and old chassis would be a used vehicle.

Section 108(a) (2) (A) of the Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, dealers, distributors and motor vehicle repair businesses (i.e., persons holding themselves out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation) from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a new or used motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This means that any person in the above categories m odifying a new or used vehicle must do so in a manner that ensures the continued compliance of the vehicle with applicable safety standards. This prohibition affects vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1968, the date on which the first Federal s afety standards became effective. For instance, a commercial business that installs a new fuel system in a passenger car manufactured on or after January 1, 1968 (the effective date of Standard No. 301) must ensure that the new system at least meets the level of safety performance required of the fuel system originally installed on the vehicle. Persons violating section 108 are subject to potential civil penalties of $1,000 per violation.

In instances in which a new vehicle body is installed on an old chassis, section 108(a) (2) (A) requires that the reassembled vehicle meet the Federal safety standards that had been in effect on the date of manufacture of the vehicle. I have enclosed a c opy of a January 14, 1976 letter to Mr. Tom Welland that describes generally the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards to refurbished motor vehicles. Please note that the first situation referred to in the Welland letter addresses the m odification of a vehicle by its owner. The prohibition in section 108(a) (2) (A) does not apply to the modifications made by vehicle owners to their own vehicles.

I will now address the questions you expressly posed in your letter. Your first three questions asked:

What relationship between allowable stresses in chassis members and the strength of the material is required (or customary) in the design of a passenger-carrying motor vehicle?

What relationship between static and dynamic load is required (or customary) in design assumptions for a passenger-carrying motor vehicle chassis?

What form or test or measurement is required (or customary) to confirm the results of the calculations?

As Ms. Hom informed you, our safety standards apply to new vehicles and are performance-oriented. NHTSA has not issued any design specifications that directly establish minimum static or dynamic loads for vehicle chassis. These design parameters are esta blished by the manufacturer independently of specific criteria set by the agency and might be available from the original manufacturer of the vehicle you are refurbishing. However, manufacturers of new vehicles are required by NHTSA to determine and spec ify the gross vehicle and axle weight ratings of their vehicles in the manner set forth in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 567 of our regulations. I have enclosed a copy of Part 567 for your information.

Chassis manufacturers must be aware, however, of the following two considerations relating to the static and dynamic load capacities of vehicles and NHTSA's regulations. First, because manufacturers of new vehicles must certify that their vehicles hill p erform to the requirements of all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, manufacturers must ensure that chassis design is compatible with the vehicle' s ability to comply. Some of our safety standards specify that the performance of requisite vehicle safety systems will be evaluated in dynamic (i.e., crash) tests which enable the agency to evaluate the synergistic effect of a range of variables on a vehicle's compliance therewith. Manufacturers of new vehicles would therefore have to ensure that the design of the chassis will have no negative effect on their vehicle's compliance with applicable safety standards.

Second, as mentioned above, NHTSA has the authority to investigate safety-related defects in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment and to require manufacturers to recall and remedy such defects free of charge. Chassis manufacturers must therefore en sure that their products contain no safety related defects, which might well include a chassis member that is incapable of carrying loads for which it is intended.

Further, the vehicle manufacturer who provides the GVWR and GAWR information required by Part 567 must ensure that the information relating to the chassis static loads is correct.

On a separate matter, your letter also asked about the requirements manufacturers must meet when installing a plastic fuel tank in a motor vehicle. The standard we issued for vehicle fuel system integrity (No. 301) sets performance requirements for fuel systems in new motor vehicles. As with all our safety standards, Standard No. 301 (copy enclosed) specifies the test that the agency will use to evaluate the performance of the requisite safety system (e.g. the fuel system) on new vehicles selected for i nclusion in its compliance test program. Manufacturers are not bound, however, to use the tests specified in the safety standards for evaluating the compliance of their vehicles or equipment with our standards. Instead, a manufactures may test in any man ner it chooses, so long as it can show that it has exercised due care in ensuring that its vehicles or items of equipment comply with the applicable Federal requirements.

In addition to the materials described above, I have also enclosed information that provides an overview of Federal requirements applying to manufacturers of new motor vehicles and instructions on how you can obtain copies of NHTSA regulations.

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

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures omitted.

Ref: Passenger vehicle design parameters

Dear Erika:

In accordance with our telephone conversation I have listed some specific questions the have a direct bearing on an ongoing project. Our purpose is to produce a specification for refurbishment of a type of passenger vehicle that was first produced twenty years ago. Our request is for either direct answers to the questions below and/or references to available publications or regulations that are the authorities for the answer.

The questions are as follows:

1. What relationship between allowable stresses in chassis members and the strength of the material is required (or customary) in the design of passenger carrying motor vehicle?

2. What relationship between static and dynamic load is required (or customary) in design assumptions for a passenger carrying motor vehicle chassis?

3. What form of test or measurement is required (or customary) to confirm the results of the calculations?

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (2) September 3, 1987

4. What data on characteristics and/or tests of a plastic fuel tank are required for approval of its use in a passenger carrying vehicle?

I thank you for your time and effort in supplying this information and hope to hear from you shortly.

In appreciation

ARTECH CORP.

Derek Nash Manager, Engineering Services

ID: nht73-2.7

DATE: 08/07/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Sebring Vanguard Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 30, 1973, requesting further information about the relationship of the Federal motor vehicle safety regulations to the Vanguard electric vehicle.

You ask the following questions:

"1. Would prior commitments made before May 16, 1973, be sufficient for a temporary exemption?"

Previously-existing commitments for parts that do not conform to systems covered by Federal motor vehicle safety standards may be presented to support the argument that compliance as of January 1, 1974, would cause substantial economic hardship. No temporary exemption has ever been requested on this basis alone, however, and whether an exemption would be granted solely on this basis would depend upon other facts in the case.

"2. Can VANGUARD be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle and what relief would that give us from adhering to federal safety standards?"

As you know, a "multipurpose passenger vehicle" (MPV) is defined in part as a vehicle "with special features for occasional off-road operation." Intent for incidental off-road use is insufficient to qualify a passenger car as an MPV. The manufacturer makes the initial determination whether a vehicle is a passenger car or whether it is a MPV, incorporating "special features" for occasional off-road operation not normally found on a passenger car. If he asks our views, we will provide them. If he does not, we are not precluded from questioning his vehicle categorization at a later date if it appears erroneous to us. The Vanguard appears to be a passenger car, but we would be willing to consider the matter further if you think it possesses unique off-road features.

"3. How can we incorporate safety improvements in our vehicles prior to January 1, 1974, that may put us over the weight limit without violating law?"

When you have completed a definitive review of your compliance problem areas you may apply for such exemptions as appear necessary. If safety improvements result in a vehicle weight that exceeds 1,000 pounds, you may legally market a vehicle if it has been exempted before January 1, 1974.

We appreciate your keeping us informed of your program with the Vanguard.

Sincerely,

SEBRING VANGUARD INC.

July 30, 1973

Lawrence R. Schneider -- Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

Dear Mr. Schneider:

This is in reply to your letter of May 31, 1973, which indicated that you are willing to meet with us to explore various alternatives to federal safety regulations in connection with the VANGUARD Electric Sport Coupe. (49 CFR Part 571) We are pleased of the position you have taken.

We wish to bring you up to date on recent developments, VANGUARD VEHICLES, INC. of Kingston, N. Y. has purchased the right, title and interest in the manufacturing of these vehicles from CLUB CAR, INC. of Augusta, Georgia.

A new corporation; SEBRING-VANGUARD, INC. of Sebring, Florida has completed licensing negotiations with the New York company to manufacture VANGUARDS. A proposed production schedule is enclosed.

Certain component lead-time commitments were entered into prior to the May 16th ruling removing the 1000 pound exemption. In order to facilitate actual marketing of a low-emission vehicle in conjunction with an active program of research and development, we are considering petitioning for a temporary exemption under Part 555 to avoid the economic hardship of non-utilization of the above commitments.

As far as we can determine this is the first company organized solely for the purpose of mass-producing electric on-the-road vehicles since the early 1900's. Competent and experienced personnel are in Sebring now operating, as a team. Companies such as Gould, Prestolite, ESB, Bendix and GE have sent engineers to assist our start-up. A sophisticated electric vehicle laboratory is in operation under the direction of Ronald Gremban, who helped build, and drove Cal Tech's successful entry in "The Great Electric Car Race" between that institution and M.I.T. a few years ago. Our Mechanical Engineering department is headed by Robert Rice of Detroit, who built many of Electric Fuel Propulsion's early experimental vehicles. Our company is well financed and two members of our board are currently chairman of New York Stock Exchange listed firms.

The May issue of Reader's Digest (reprint enclosed) had an article entitled "Is The Electric Car Coming Back?" VANGUARD was featured. The current issue of True magazine has a large photo of VANGUARD on Page 18. As a result of articles such as the above, we have received over 1000 phone calls and over 5000 written requests for more information from interested citizens and companies here and abroad. Negotiations for export to Germany, Japan and Bermuda are underway.

Our staff has made a review of standard numbers 101 through 121. Preliminary opinion indicates standard 103, and part of 104, 105 and 114 may be our only problem areas. Further study will determine if we specifically request your guidance on aspects of the above mentioned standards that could hinder our ability to produce and market.

We request that NHTSA carefully consider any variance from standards which we ask because of inherent limitations of our basic energy source; the lead-acid battery. Any added excess weight seriously diminshes effective utilization of the electricity stored in our vehicles. We believe NHTSA is aware of this. It is our opinion that the most abundant and inexpensive source of energy remaining for personal transportation is the combination of lead and sulphuric acid. Its vast potential to this end should be judiciously used.

One other area we wish to explore is VANGUARD'S classification. The following are various purposes for which VANGUARD is currently used:

Mr. and Mrs. S. E. Cronquist of the Swedish Embassy of Washington, D. C. used their VANGUARD as a family second car.

The Winged-Foot Country Club of Westchester County, New York is using a VANGUARD with specially equipped tires for transportation for the head grounds keeper's transportation around its huge fairways and other acreage.

The City of Ft. Lauderdale, Florida recently purchased a VANGUARD for experimental use by City Meter Maids.

Mr. Sam Kelly of Dearing, Georgia purchased a VANGUARD in April of this year. Mr. Kelly is partially paralyzed on the left side of his body and could not operate a conventional auto. The VANGUARD is currently making his life richer.

Mr. John Paynter of Vineyard Haven on Martha's Vineyard in Mass. uses his VANGUARD to deliver parts from his marina to boat owners and occasionally tows light weight boats from dock to dock.

The U.S. Dept. of Commerce has used a VANGUARD at the National Weather Observatory in Sterling, Virginia, for over six months to gather data from the various buildings at the sight. They have recently submitted a bid for two more vehicles.

Rockland Power and Light purchased two VANGUARDS. One for carrying a plant manager around the plant site which enables him to get into areas conventional cars could not, including off-the-road critical areas for occasional surveillance. The other vehicle is being used for multi-purposes including electric meter reading.

Ieland F. Bunch, Sr., of Huntington, W. Va. uses his VANGUARD to show clients various real estate parcels.

A businessman in New Martinsville, W. Va. has a 25 year old son with a hearing impediment. The boy refused to drive a conventional car because of this. He now drives a VANGUARD and his father has written us a thank you letter indicating his son has "come out of his shell".

We have been contacted for further information for potential usage is such diverse activities as Zoo oatrol, pizza deliveries, airport usages and a host of other purposes both on-the-road and off-the-road.

The above leads us to believe that use of our vehicle is so divergent and difficult to categorize that it could indeed be considered a "multi-purpose" vehicle. If this should be the case, Mr. Schneider, who determines if it is so and what is the procedure to classify VANGUARD as "multi-purpose"?

There is one final point we wish to discuss. We are anxious to make our vehicle as safe as possible. Current law may preclude this in that certain safety features we may be able to add prior to the January 1, 1974, deadline may put us slightly over the 1000 pound weight limit. Severe economic hardship could occur if we can't deliver cars prior to January 1, yet under existing law we would be in violation if we don't meet all safety standards and our weight is over 1000 pounds. We would sincerely appreciate any comments you could make concerning this problem.

In summary we would like to know:

1. Would prior commitment made before May 16, 1973 be sufficient for a temporary exemption?

2. Can VANGUARD be classified as a multi-purpose vehicle and what relief would that give us from adhering to federal safety standards?

3. How can we incorporate safety improvements in our vehicle prior to January 1, 1974 that may put us over the weight limit without violating law?

May we hear from you at your earliest convenience?

Sincerely yours,

Robert G. Beaumont -- President

Enclosures

CC: James E. Wilson; Senator James L. Buckley; Senator Jacob Javits

(registered) Vanguard electric car

SPECIFICATIONS for the VANGUARD SPORT COUPE

LENGTH: 96" WIDTH: 45 1/2" WHEEL-BASE: 65" WEIGHT: 980 lbs. CONTROLLER: Vanguard variable voltage speed control. TRANSMISSION: Double reduction gear drive. SUSPENSION: leaf springs; Front & Rear. BODY: Triple-thick fiberglass (rust and corrosion proof). FRAME: Extruded aluminum I-beams (rust and corrosion proof). BRAKES: Hydraulic on both rear wheels plus emergency. SPEED: Maximum and cruising 28 mph. RANGE: 40-60 miles with infinite stops/starts depending on temperature and terrain. ACCELERATION: 0-10, 2.1 secs. -0-15, 4.5 secs. 0-25, 11.6 sec. STANDARD EQUIPMENT: Signal lites, brake lites, stop lites, windshield wiper, headlites, parking lites, emergency flashers, side view mirror, rear view mirror, license plate lite, horn, house current battery charger, AS-1 laminated safety glass windshield, fuel gauge, amp-draw gauge, six 6 volt 106 minute batteries. Available body colors: red, blue, yellow, turquoise & cinnamon.

OPTIONAL EQUIPMENT: Two-tone paint (white top), Wheel covers (set of 4), Heater (catalytic), Defroster (electric), Radio and antenna (transistor).

See at: POWR STOP(trademark)

330 South Nevada Colorado Springs, Colorado

Phone: (303) 471-POWR SEBRING Vanguard INC.

July 20, 1973

Charles Zegers -- Electric Vehicle Council

Dear Mr. Zegers:

Bob Beaumont handed me the enclosed Electric Auto Association Newsletter and requested that I write to you for some assistance from your office.

Although you may already have read the newsletter, we do want to bring attention to the circled paragraph regarding cancellation of three show dates. As the article reads, P.S. & F., a Co-sponsor of three shows high-lighting electric cars, dropped out of the program because it felt that the electric vehicle in some way conflicted with the energy crisis.

We would appreciate anything you can do to change this decision or at least clear up what appears to be a serious misunderstanding on the part of P.G.&E and the consumer. In view of the nature of the electric vehicle, popular use of this means of transportation would actually help alleviate the energy crisis. We have seen estimates, confirmed by experts, that it takes less than one gallon of low-grade fossil fuel to generate the electricity necessary to charge the batteries of a VANGUARD Electric Sport Coupe to propel it forty to sixty miles. This figure compares to as many as six or seven gallons of refined fuel to propel a conventional automobile the same distance. However, this figure assumes that liquid fossil fuels are being used to generate the electricity; if all or part of the energy comes from hydroelectric generators or nuclear reactors which do not pollute, the energy demand on our resources is even less. Furthermore, there is no energy crisis from the burning of coal or shale since it is estimated that that source of energy could accomodate us for another one or two thousand years. All of this means that more electric vehicles equals fewer conventional automobiles. Hence, the demand for highly-refined fossil fuel slows down and assures us a longer lasting supply of that particular energy resource.

Another point to convey to the decision-makers at P.G. & E. and consumers is that most electric vehicles are charged during the nights and early morning hours when demand for energy is little. This fact is significant in several ways. With minimal demand for electricity during part of the twenty-four hour day, the power generating facilities are obliged to slow down to a virtual crawl and then work back to a high output capacity when the demand reaches its peak. In the same way that an automobile uses more gasoline in start-stop traffic, so also does a generating power plant run inefficiently. A wide use of electric vehicles would obviously save the power plants and consumer money and natural resources because this start-up slow-down pattern would be minimized.

To reiterate, generating equipment, which represents a huge capital outlay for the utility company and hence a considerable chunk of the consumers electric bill would be used more steadily and efficiently if electric vehicles were charged at night. Continuing the analogy of the automobile, in the same way that a Chevrolet registers better gas-milage in highway driving, so also does a generator get better fuel-power if it is run at a constant rate over a twenty-four hour period, and while the efficiency improves, the utility revenues increase, thus permitting a substantial cut-back in utility rates and an additional savings to the consumer.

With these points in mind, F.G.&.E. might raise another campaign for the electric vehicle. The consumer should also understand these cost comparisons. With the help of your office, we can accomplish this goal.

Sincerely yours,

Robert M. Stone II -- Assistant to the President

CC: Director of Public Relations -- Pacific Gas and Electric; Morley G. Molden -- American Electric Power Corp.

Electric Auto Association news Letter

VOL. IV No. 4

CANCELLATION OF THREE SHOW DATES

We regret to announce that the co-sponsor, PG&E, felt that they should not be urging a greater use of electric power during this time when there is a serious potential power shortage. These displays were to have been during three days each month during July, August and September.

It is hoped that each chapter will be able to utilize this time to organize a local display in shopping centers, or county fairs. Try to get adequate publicity to tell the public of available alternatives for personal transportation while there is the gasoline shortage.

Here is a good chance for electric car enthusiasts to encourage others to join us and to think about building, showing, and using electric cars.

A Reader's Digest

Reprint

Condensed from Discovery Harland Manchester

Is the Electric Car Coming Back?

Clean and quiet, but too poky for the highway, the electrics may yet catch on for short-haul, stop-and-go work in the world's pollution-choked cities

Vanguard electric

Prototype Battronic delivery van

At Kingston, N.Y., I recently poked around the streets in a snappy little automotive midget that had just room enough for two people. It had a top speed of about 28 miles per hour, no carburetor or radiator, and it gave off no exhaust and was almost silent. The car was a Vanguard electric, with which its producer hopes to invade the suburban second-car market.

A few days later, at Boyertown, Pa., I rode in another battery- powered vehicle a prototype of a fleet of 100 to be market-tested as delivery vans.

On a Miami Beach shopping mall, where gas-belching cars are banned, I paid a dime for a ride in an electric surrey with a fringe on top. In a Tampa retirement colony, I borrowed a battery-powered buggy to visit friends. And throughout the country, I've seen electric-powered golf carts used for such non-sporting purposes as delivering papers, transporting, VIPs at airports, and ferrying major-league baseball pitchers to the dugout.

Every now and then someone asks, "Is the electric car coming back?" The answer seems to be: "It's already here." The poky-paced electric doesn't belong on superhighways, but many short-trip drivers who like economy and clean air are finding the relaxing and pleasant vehicle to be just what the doctor ordered.

The Vanguard electric looks a little like a jeep in a ten-gallon hat. It has a body of colored fiber glass, weighs about 980 pounds, and its makers promise a range, between battery charges, of 40 to 60 miles, depending on temperature and terrain. Its charger can be plugged into any household circuit at home or on the road. Recharging its lead-acid batteries takes five to seven hours and costs about 21 cents. The Vanguard's developer, 40-year-old Robert G. Beaumont, used to run an automobile agency. Five years ago, he caught the electric bug, teamed up with a Georgia manufacturer of golf carts and is now turning out the Vanguards at a price of $ 1986.

Beaumont's buggy is likely to have plenty of competition. Thirty companies, including Ford, General Motors, Westinghouse and General Electric, are reported to have short-range, low-speed electric vehicles either in the prototype or limited production stage. A 1972 survey by the Electric Vehicle Council indicated that 55 million Americans would be interested in buying such a vehicle if it were available for under $ 2000. Curiously, the 18-to-29-year-olds showed the greatest interest of any age group.

This surge of interest in electric vehicles comes at a time when the internal combustion engine used in most of today's cars faces a Washington ultimatum to cut down on emissions. Many experts frankly despair of cleaning up the old "I.C.," and scientists and engineers are studying substitutes. The Wankel, * the gas turbine, the steam engine, the stratified-charge engine, the electric and others have their advocates. But none of them is without serious drawbacks. Meanwhile, every day 12,000 additional cars join the polluting procession on our nation's roads.

* See "Watch Out for the Winkel!" The Reader's Digest, January '72.

No magic wand will solve the problem, but there is some hope for a piecemeal approach. Exhaust pollution is by no means geographically uniform. Walk through the commercial streets of any city when trucks are making deliveries and you will inhale exhaust fumes at their worst. At low speeds and when idling, internal combustion engines pour out far more gaseous garbage than they do at high speeds on the open road. Thus a serious auto pollution problem is caused by the millions of short-trip urban vehicles -- delivery vans, buses, mail trucks, refuse trucks, taxis -- that travel less than 100 miles a day at average speeds of less than 30 m.p.h. Why should these city-confined vehicles have the capability, never used by most of them, of barging hundreds of miles non-stop over superhigh-ways at 75 miles an hour?

All cars and all trucks need not be alike. The Battronic Truck Corp. of Boyerton, Pa., is now building 100 electric work vehicles adaptable for either passengers or cargo. The program is sponsored by the Electric Vehicle Council, and 57 cooperating utility companies will buy and test the vehicles under various conditions to obtain operating data. The Post Office, the government, the bread man, the dry cleaner, the parcel-delivery company, the TV-repair man are considered prime candidates for this work horse. Gasoline vehicles on such runs spend up to 85 percent of their time idling. Electric cars do not idle; when you take your foot off the pedal, the power cuts off.

Depending on speed, the new trucks will run from 30 to 68 miles on one battery charge. Actually, however, their range is unlimited because of an ingenious, self-contained, multi-battery pack that slides out of the truck-bed like a bureau drawer. A man with a special carrier can put in a fresh, fully charged pack in five minutes.

Such battery-powered vans are already in regular service in Great Britain, where about 60,000 are registered. A London dairy firm which used hundreds of horse-drawn carts before World War II now operates a fleet of about 4000 specially designed electrics in the Greater London area. Some of the trucks have been in service for 25 years, and are said by the firm to surpass gasoline-fed trucks in low maintenance costs and reliability. And, according to customers who appreciate their early-morning quietness, they "travel on stocking feet."

On the Continent, about 10,000 electric cars are on the road, most of them delivery vans. A prominent German utility firm, RWE, is sponsoring the development of electric vehicles for use in congested urban areas. The goal: for 10 to 20 percent of all new vehicles in Germany to be electric by 1980. Volkswagen, the first big automobile firm to build modern electrics, is supplying part of the trial fleet. In Japan, too, where urban air pollution is probably the world's worst, a program to build electric cars for various uses is under way, sponsored by the government.

The electric car may seem like a radical innovation; actually, it was in use before the internal combustion engine. A primitive battery-driven car appeared in England in 1837; improved electrics were in use in Boston and Des Moines in the late 19th century; and by 1899 several hundred electric taxicabs were operating in New York City. Before World War I, "bird-cage" electric carriages piloted by elegant ladies were a familiar sight in many American towns. More than 100 manufacturers of that era sold a total of some 10,000 electrics a year. As late as the 1930s, many battery-driven panel delivery trucks were in use in American cities. But the range of all these electrics was short, their speed low, their batteries heavy, and they could not compete with the burgeoning gasoline engine.

Batteries that limit speed and range remain the bugaboos of today's electric vehicles. Engineers throughout the world are working on substitutes for today's lead-acid variety, but nothing satisfactory has yet been found. A few years ago, I rode in a car equipped with silver-zinc batteries. It had fast acceleration and cruised at 60 miles an hour. But the silver in its batteries cost $ 20,000. (The electric cars used by the astronauts on the moon also had silver-zinc batteries -- and cost more than $ 12 million apiece, including research and development.) If a superior battery of reasonable cost can be developed, the electric vehicle may indeed become a highway car. Meanwhile, as pollution's fetid miasma spreads in widening circles, some 20 million short-trip vehicles in cities and suburbs could be replaced by the kinds of electric cars now available.

ID: 571-205-Driver Shield for Buses and Vans_final signed (002)

Ms. Lee Ann Sparks Schetky

Bus & Van Sales

148 N. 90th Rd.

Culver, KS 67484

Dear Ms. Sparks:

This responds to your May 7, 2020 email asking about adding “driver shields” to transit buses and vans. You explain that you are developing a driver’s shield assembly to provide to your customers in the transit industry in an effort to protect drivers from the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). You describe the shields as being constructed with plexiglass, stainless tubing and fasteners, with a swing out door to give drivers access to the stepwell entry platform and passenger cabin. You ask about the requirements that would apply when adding these shields to vehicles. We appreciate this opportunity to respond.

Background 

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (“Safety Act,” 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment and does not determine whether a product conforms to the FMVSS outside of an agency compliance proceeding. Instead, the Safety Act requires manufacturers to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable FMVSS that are in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA also investigates safety-related defects.

Discussion

Our answer below is based on our understanding of the specific information provided in your email and attached documentation. Please note that this interpretation letter does not have the force and effect of law and is not meant to bind the public in any way. NHTSA will make determinations of conformance with the FMVSSs only in the context of an agency enforcement proceeding. This letter is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing requirements under the law, and represents the opinion of the agency on the questions addressed in your email at the time of signature.

After reviewing the information you provided, NHTSA has concluded that the transparent material of the “shield assembly,” located immediately to the right of a driver, is an interior partition composed of motor vehicle “glazing” that must comply with FMVSS No. 205, “Glazing materials.” FMVSS No. 205 establishes minimum performance requirements for glazing materials for use in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment and incorporates by reference an industry standard, the American National Standards Institute American National Standard for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment Operating on Land Highways-Safety Standard (ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996). FMVSS No. 205 and ANSI/SAE Z26.1 specify performance requirements for various types of glazing (called “Items”), and specify the locations in vehicles in which each item of glazing may be used. FMVSS No. 205 applies to glazing installed in motor vehicles1 prior to first purchase and to aftermarket glazing for use in motor vehicles.

As motor vehicle glazing, the transparent material of your barrier must meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 205 and be certified as meeting that standard by the prime glazing manufacturer, and, if applicable, the manufacturer or distributer who cuts the glazing into components for use in motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment.2 If you, in assembling the barrier, cut the glazing, you must ensure the glazing meets the requirements of FMVSS No. 205, and must certify its compliance pursuant to S6.3 of FMVSS No. 205. On the other hand, if you only assemble the barrier using pre-cut glazing that has been certified by a glazing manufacturer, you are not required to certify the glazing. However, as the manufacturer of the aftermarket barrier, you are responsible for ensuring your product is free from safety-related defects. If you or this agency finds your product to contain a safety-related defect after you market the product, you are responsible for conducting a notice and recall campaign as required under 49 U.S.C. §§ 30118- 30120.

As described in your email, the barrier would be located to the right of the driver. In that location, and for every vehicle type, portions of the glazing would be requisite for driving visibility. Any portion of the glazing that the driver would see through in order to view windows requisite for driving visibility would also be considered requisite for driving visibility. For buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs), this would include any window to the immediate right or left of the driver and the front windshield.3 (For passenger cars, all windows are considered requisite for driving visibility.)

1 Requirements for glazing vary by vehicle type. You state that the barriers will be installed in buses and “vans.” NHTSA does not use the term “van” when classifying motor vehicles for purposes of FMVSS applicability. If the vehicle in which the barriers will be installed carry more than 10 persons, the vehicle would be classified as a bus under NHTSA’s FMVSS. If the vehicle carries 10 or fewer persons, it would be classified as either a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV) or passenger car, depending on whether the vehicle is built on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation (49 CFR 571.3). Based on your email, we assume that the vehicles in which the barriers would be installed are not passenger cars. Thus, we assume the vehicles are “buses” or “MPVs.” We assume the vehicles are not trucks. This classification is important for determining the application of the glazing standard to the vehicles.

2 49 CFR 571.205, S6.

3 In a letter to Cris Morgan, NHTSA concluded that low-level glazing on doors to the right or left of the driver are considered windows that are requisite for driving visibility. Therefore, glazing through which the driver would view

Glazing for interior partitions in areas requisite for driving visibility must be of one of the following types of glazing: Item 1, Item 2, Item 4, Item 4A, Item 10, Item 11A, Item 11C,4 Item 14, Item 15A, or Item 15B. Glazing for interior partitions in areas not requisite for driving visibility must be one of the following types of glazing: Item 1, Item 2, Item 3, Item 4, Item 4A, Item 5, Item 10, Item 11A, Item 11B, Item 11C, Item 12, Item 13, Item 14, Item 15A, Item 15B, Item 16A, or Item 16B.

Please note that there may be additional requirements depending on who installs the barrier. If the barrier is installed prior to first vehicle sale, the installer must ensure that, with the barrier installed, the vehicle complies with FMVSS No. 205 and all other applicable FMVSS, and must certify the vehicle as complying with all applicable FMVSS. If the barrier is installed as aftermarket equipment by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, rental company, or motor vehicle repair business, that entity would be subject to 49 U.S.C. 30122, which prohibits the entity from knowingly making inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. In either case, the entity installing the barrier should pay particular attention to ensuring that installation of the barrier does not obstruct the driver’s view of the mirrors and/or rearview image required under FMVSS No. 111, “Rear visibility,” impact the vehicle’s compliance with FMVSS No. 302 “Flammability of interior materials,” prevent the driver from readily accessing emergency exits installed in compliance with FMVSS No. 217, “Bus emergency exits and window retention and release,” or impede the driver’s ability to see through the windows needed for driving visibility.5

Apart from requirements that NHTSA administers, the installation of the barrier may be subject to other Federal or State laws or regulations. For example, purchasers or lessees of the vehicles may be subject to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the accessibility requirements found at 49 CFR Parts 37 and 38 and may need to ensure that the vehicle they purchase or lease continues to comply with the requirements after the barrier is installed.

these windows would be considered requisite for driving visibility. Letter to Cris Morgan (January 14, 2009), available at https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/08-004149--19%20Nov%2008--sa.htm.

4 If the partition is a bullet-resistant shield constructed using Item 11C glazing, the combined parallel luminous transmittance with perpendicular incidence through both the shield and the permanent vehicle glazing is to be at least 60 %.

5 To ensure that installation does not impact the vehicle’s compliance with applicable FMVSS, the installer should be familiar with FMVSS requirements for a vehicle of its type and weight. Please note that installation of a safety barrier in vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) or less may require additional considerations as there are different, and often more stringent, requirements for lighter vehicles.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Callie Roach of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

JONATHAN CHARLES MORRISON

Digitally signed by JONATHAN CHARLES MORRISON 

Date: 2020.06.04 19:42:26 -04'00'

Jonathan C. Morrison Chief Counsel

Dated: 6/4/20

Ref: FMVSS No. 205

ID: aiam4940

"Dear Mr. Klisz: This responds to your letter regarding foreign-mad tires that the Army procured in Southwest Asia. You indicated that your office is trying to ascertain the suitability of these tires, not all of which are marked with a 'DOT' certification, for Army use. You enclosed a list of the tires and, for those marked with 'DOT', requested this office to 'determine if the DOT codes are accurate according to our records.' You also requested that we verify your understanding of the general requirements applicable to foreign tire manufacturers, and the process by which such manufacturers certify their tires as complying with our standards. I am pleased to have this opportunity to answer your questions. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act). Section 103 of the Safety Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act defines a motor vehicle safety standard as, 'a minimum standard for motor vehicle performance, or motor vehicle equipment performance, which is practicable, which meets the need for motor vehicle safety and which provides objective criteria.' See 102(2) . The Safety Act then requires that all motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment sold or imported into the United States, regardless of whether the product is manufactured in the U.S. or abroad, must comply with the safety standards adopted by NHTSA. Specifically, 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act provides: no person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver into introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard and is covered by a certification issued under 114... In the case of tires, this provision of the Safety Act means that a foreign tire manufacturer would be prohibited from exporting its new tires to the United States unless the manufacturer certified that the tire complies with the applicable U.S. safety standards. All new tires for use on passenger cars must be certified as complying with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 (49 CFR 571.109), and all new tires for use on other motor vehicles must be certified as complying with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119 (49 CFR 571.119). These standards specify performance requirements (strength, endurance, high speed performance, and, for passenger car tires only, resistance to bead unseating), marking requirements (treadwear indicators and labeling information), and tire and rim matching information requirements that must be met by all tires to be sold in the United States. The process of certifying compliance with the applicable safety standards under the Safety Act is substantially different than that used in many other countries. For instance, the European nations require manufacturers to deliver tires to a governmental entity for testing. After the governmental entity itself tests the tires, the government approves those tires for use and assigns an approval code to the tires. In place of this sort of process, the Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process for tires sold in the United States. Under this self-certification process, the tire manufacturer, not any governmental entity, certifies that its tires comply with the applicable safety standards. Further, the Safety Act does not require that a manufacturer base this certification on a specified number of tests or any tests at all, a manufacturer is only required to exercise due care in certifying its tires. It is up to the individual tire manufacturer to determine in the first instance what test results, computer simulations, engineering analyses, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that its tires comply with the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Once a manufacturer has determined that its tires meet the requirements of the applicable standard, it certifies that compliance by molding the letters 'DOT' on one sidewall of each certified tire. As stated above, NHTSA does not do any pre-sale approval or testing of tires. Instead, the agency routinely tests certified tires that have been sold to determine whether the tires do in fact comply with applicable standards. For these enforcement checks, the agency purchases new tires and tests them according to the procedures specified in the standard. If the tires pass the tests, no further steps are taken. If the tires fail the tests and are determined not to comply with the standard, the tire manufacturer is required to recall the tires and remedy the noncompliance. Turning now to your particular situation, it is not clear how helpful these requirements will be in assessing the current safety performance of the tires procured during Operation Desert Storm/Desert Shield. In the case of such tires that are marked with 'DOT', that mark means the tire manufacturer certified that, when new, the tires complied with all applicable safety standards. However, the presence of a 'DOT' symbol on a used tire does not mean that the tire in its current condition would still comply with the new tire standards. There are many instances in which used tires would be unlikely to comply with the new tire standards, simply because of normal environmental factors and without any fault in the construction of the tire. Such environmental factors include, but are not limited to, a hole larger than a nail suffered by the tire while in service, damage to the inner liner of the tire from being run flat, damage to the bead area of the tire during mounting, damage to the sidewall from running against rocks, curbs, and so forth. In each of these instances, the vehicles on which the tires have been used and the conditions in which those vehicles have been operated would be at least as important in determining the tire's current performance capabilities as would the tire's capabilities when it was new. Further, the absence of a 'DOT' symbol on a tire purchased outside of the United States does not necessarily mean that the tire, when new, would not have complied with the applicable tire safety standard. On the contrary, it is possible that the new tire would have, if tested, actually been found to comply with those safety standards. The only definitive conclusion you may draw about a tire without a 'DOT' symbol that is purchased outside the United States is that the tire's manufacturer, for whatever reason, did not certify that tire's compliance. It could be that the tire did not comply when new, or it could be that the manufacturer did not produce the tire for importation and eventual sale in the U.S., and therfore felt no need to certify the tire. You noted in your letter that this agency has established a requirement in 49 CFR Part 574 that all tire manufacturers, both foreign and domestic, must obtain an identification mark from NHTSA and label each of their tires with that mark. Before NHTSA will assign an identification mark to a tire manufacturer headquartered outside the United States, the manufacturer must designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of process in this country. However, the designated agent of the manufacturer only acts as the agent for service of process, the manufacturer's designated agent is not responsible for the certification of the tires. Only the manufacturer certifies that the tires comply with all applicable standards and, as explained above, that certification must be made (and indicated with a DOT symbol) before the tire would be allowed to enter the United States. Finally, you requested in your letter that we review the list of tires you submitted and verify the accuracy of the 'DOT' marks shown. I believe this request was based upon a misunderstanding of NHTSA's role in the certification process. Since manufacturers are not required to deliver their tires to NHTSA for testing, or register their products with the agency, the agency has no way to 'verify the accuracy' of the DOT codes you submitted. To repeat, the DOT code molded into the sidewall of a tire represents the manufacturer's self-certification that the tire complies with applicable standards, the DOT code is not a statement or certification by NHTSA that the tire complies with our standards. NHTSA would only have information about the 'accuracy' of the DOT codes (i.e., whether the tires so marked actually meet the standards), in the event that the agency had conducted one of its random enforcement checks on a new tire like the one in question. Accordingly, we reviewed our enforcement records to determine whether NHTSA performed compliance tests on new versions of any of those tires. Having searched the agency's data base for the brands, types, and years of the listed tires, we found that the agency did not conduct compliance tests on any of these tires. I hope this information is helpful. Please contact Stephen Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have further questions. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: 08-006052drn vasatko

ID: 17513mer.b-i

Mr. Daniel J. Selke
Manager, Safety Engineering
Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.
One Mercedes Drive
P.O. Box 350
Montvale, NJ 07645-0350

Dear Mr. Selke:

This responds to your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) asking about the test requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems," for a child restraint system you plan to sell. You believe that the system is a "built-in" child restraint system under Standard 213 and ask for confirmation that the restraint will not be tested in "misuse" configurations, i.e., installed on the testing apparatus in ways contrary to Mercedes-Benz's instructions for using the restraint. As explained below, we have carefully considered your suggested interpretation and regret that we cannot confirm it.

You describe the restraint as follows:

The system is composed of two parts; an integrated booster cushion and an add-on impact shield. The booster cushion is operated by a push-button. When activated, a portion of the rear seat of a vehicle equipped with the system raises to form the booster cushion. . . .[Daimler-Benz AG's (DBAG's)] integrated child restraint system is a progressive system designed for use with children as they grow older. The impact shield is designed for use in conjunction with the booster seat for children who weigh 9 to 18 kg (20 to 40 lbs.). The impact shield is secured directly in front of the child by the lap and shoulder belt with the "legs" of the shield stabilized by being placed on both sides of the booster cushion. Without the presence of the booster cushion, the "legs" of the impact shield would collapse making use of the shield alone unrealistic. The design of the impact shield acts to secure the child's torso and to keep the child's legs fixed. Children who weigh 18 to 36 kg. (40 to 80 lbs.) only need the booster seat and standard lap and shoulder belt to be properly secured. Children who weigh more than 36 kg (80 lbs.) may use the conventional lap and shoulder belts.

For convenience, we have depicted these recommended weight ranges and restraint configurations in the following table:

DBAG'S RECOMMENDATIONS

Your specific questions concern how NHTSA would test the restraint. You want us to confirm that when the restraint is tested in the configuration intended for children under 40 lb., the agency would test the system using both the booster and the shield with the vehicle's lap and shoulder belt. You also ask us to confirm that when the restraint is tested in the configuration intended for children greater than 40 lb., the booster would be used with the vehicle's lap and shoulder belt. You would like us to concur that "At no time, would testing of the system be required that involved use of the shield without the booster."

We agree with some of your statements but do not agree with others. We agree that the shield would not be tested without the booster. Standard 213 defines a "child restraint system" as "any device except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less." An impact shield is designed "to restrain. . . children." The standard also defines an "add-on" child restraint system as "any portable child restraint system." A portable impact shield that is sold to consumers without any other accompanying parts would be an add-on child restraint system and, obviously, would be tested to Standard 213's requirements without any other part. Your shield, however, is merely a component of a child restraint system and is not intended to be used separately from the other parts of the restraint system. The shield cannot even support itself on its "legs" without the booster cushion. Because of these factors, we do not consider your impact shield to be an add-on child restraint system. The shield itself would not be tested to the requirements of Standard 213 without the booster.

However, there is a question of whether your restraint system (booster cushion with impact shield) is a "built-in child restraint system" under Standard 213 (S4). Configured in the mode used to restrain children under 40 lb., the restraint does not meet the standard's definition of a "built-in child restraint system."

The standard defines "built-in child restraint system" as "a child restraint system that is designed to be an integral part of and permanently installed in a motor vehicle." (Emphasis added.) NHTSA has used the term "integral" in the context of Standard 213 to mean "formed as a unit with another part." See, e.g., April 29, 1980 letter to Mr. Koziatek (copy enclosed). The add-on impact shield would not be formed as a unit with the motor vehicle. Also, the add-on shield would not be "permanently installed" in the vehicle. Because of these factors, we would not consider the add-on shield to be part of the built-in child restraint system. Accordingly, we would not use the shield when testing the restraint in Standard 213 compliance tests.

This means that the booster would have to meet Standard 213's requirements when configured so as to consist of the cushion alone with the lap and shoulder belts, without the shield, and when tested with each of the appropriate test dummies specified in the standard. The standard specifies that child restraints recommended for children weighing 20 to 40 lb. are tested with a dummy representing a 3-year-old child. Because the add-on shield is not part of the built-in system, it would not be used in the compliance test using the 3-year-old dummy, notwithstanding any instructions you might provide to consumers to use the shield. Add-on, nonpermanent components can be lost or misplaced and may not be accessible when the restraint has to be used.

Standard 213 does not prohibit you from voluntarily providing add-on pieces to possibly improve the performance of your built-in restraint. However, as stated in the preceding paragraph, the restraint must provide a minimum level of safety and meet Standard 213's requirements without use of the add-on components, to ensure that the restraint will provide adequate protection in the event the add-on components are not used. Of course, if Mercedes-Benz redesigned this seat to assure that the shield was "integral" and "permanently installed," these considerations would not apply.

With respect to the restraint's configuration for older children, Standard 213 also specifies that a test dummy representing a 6-year-old child is used to test a child restraint that is recommended for children weighing 40 or more lb. Accordingly, we would also use the 6-year-old dummy in compliance tests to test the booster cushion and lap and shoulder belts. We agree with you that when the booster is tested in the configuration intended for children greater than 40 lb., the booster would be used with the vehicle's lap and shoulder belt, without the shield.

There is another matter we would like to address, concerning your labeling of the restraint for children weighing as little as 20 lb. You should note that S5.5.5(f) of Standard 213 prohibits manufacturers from recommending booster seats for children less than 13.6 kilograms (30 lb.). This prohibition is based on test data that showed that the 20 lb. dummy (representing a 9-month-old child) was consistently ejected from booster seats in 30 mile per hour dynamic tests. (See final rule adding the prohibition to Standard 213, 59 Fed. Reg. 37167, July 21, 1994.) NHTSA believes children weighing approximately 20 to 30 lb. need a restraining system that provides a higher degree of upper torso and crotch restraint, such as that provided by convertible or toddler restraints, than that provided by a booster seat. Accordingly, the DBAG booster seat must not be recommended for children weighing less than 30 lb.

We would like to take this opportunity to make one last point before closing. In arguing that the DBAG booster seat should be tested only in accordance with your instructions for using the restraint, you state that Standard 213 "was not designed to sanction improper use or misuse of any child restraint system...." Standard 213 is intended to address, among other things, the problem of misuse of child restraints. It does so by requiring restraints that have features that are likely to be misused to meet performance requirements when installed on the test seat assembly in the "misuse" mode. For example, because NHTSA determined that parents were not attaching the top tethers of child restraints when installing the restraints in their vehicles, Standard 213 was amended to require restraints that have tether straps to meet the standard's requirements with the tether unattached. (See S6.1.2(a)(1), requiring restraints to be secured using only a lap belt and without a tether.) Standard 213 also addresses misuse by standardizing certain aspects of child restraints, such as the manner of installation, to reduce the chance of confusion and incorrect use resulting from such confusion. We believe that the likelihood that parents will misuse a built-in system is reduced when all the components needed to restrain the child are built into the child restraint system.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have other questions.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:213
d.8/4/98

ID: nht87-1.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/20/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Senator Strom Thurmond

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 3/22/79 letter from Frank Berndt to Sterling Troxel; 10/5/78 letter from Joseph J. Levin to Charles B. Honeycutt; 12/29/77 letter from Joseph J. Levin to Kentucky Dept. of Education; 3/20/78 letter from J.J. Levin, Jr., to Nebraska Dept. of Mot or Vehicles

TEXT:

Dear Senator Thurmond:

Thank you for your December 8, 1986, letter enclosing correspondence from your constituent, Mr. Roy H. Herron of the Anderson County School District No. 3 in Iva, concerning our school bus regulations. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply , since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for administering Federal programs relating to school bus safety.

In his letters to you' Mr. Herron expressed his concern with Federal laws Which he believes prohibit the school district from using 15-passenger vans manufactured on or after April 1, 1977, that do not meet Federal school bus standards. be argues that th ere is a need for school districts to use 15-passenger vans and suggests that we amend our regulations to permit their use.

I appreciate this opportunity to clarify our regulations for school buses. As explained below, the Federal requirements apply only to the manufacture and sale of new school buses, not to the operation of school buses after they have been purchased. Thus, there is no Federal law that prohibits the Anderson County School District from using their 15-passenger vans to carry school children. Federal law does, however, affect the manufacture of the vans and their sale to school districts.

I believe it might be helpful to begin with some background information on our school bus regulations. NHTSA has the authority, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, to regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. In 1974, Congress enacted the School bus and Motor Vehicle Safety Amendments which directed NHTSA to issue motor vehicle safety standards on specific aspects of school bus safety and apply those standards to all vehicles designed to carry more than 10 passengers and likely to be significantly used for student transportation. The school bus standards we issued became effective April 1, 1977, and apply to each new school bus manufactured on or after that date. School buses manufactured prior to the effective date of the safety standards were not required to be designed and built in compliance with those standards.

Under the Vehicle Safety Act, manufacturers of school buses must ensure that their new vehicles meet all Federal safety standards applicable to buses and also those specifically applicable to school buses. The Safety Act also requires each person selling a new "school bus" to ensure that the bus complies with our school bus safety standards or be potentially subject to fines under Federal law. We define a "school bus" as a motor vehicle designed for 11 or more persons (driver included) and intended for transporting students to and from school or related events. Since new 15-passenger vans that are sold to the Anderson County School Districts are considered "school buses" under Federal law, persons selling such vans must ensure that the vans conform to Federal school bus safety standards.

Mr. Herron suggests that the definition of a school bus be amended to provide that passenger capacity be extended to 15 passengers. NHTSA's definition of a school bus necessarily follows the statutory definition of that term. Without a change by Congress in the statutory definition, our definition must remain as it is.

Your constituent argues in his letter to you that 15-passenger vans should be safe enough for school children since they are safe for other passengers. The legislative history of the School bus amendments of 1974 indicate that Congress believed that spec ial measures should be taken to protect school children who use school bus transportation. Fifteen-passenger vans (i.e., buses) meeting our school bus safety standards provide more safety features than other buses. School buses must meet stringent perfor mance requirements, including those for interior protection, fuel systems, emergency exits, windows and windshields and seating systems.

New 15-passenger vans, conforming to our school bus standards, may be sold to the Anderson County School Districts to transport its pupils to school related events. The school districts may also purchase 9-passenger vans for school transportation, becaus e such vans are considered "multipurpose passenger vehicles"' (MPV's) and not "school buses" under Federal law. We do not prohibit the sale of new MPV's to carry school children nor do we require then to comply with Federal school bus safety standards. I nstead, they must meet the performance requirements set by the safety standards for MPV's, which also provide high levels of passenger safety.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

December 8, 1986 Mr. David Sloane, Director Congressional Affairs Department of Transportation Suite 10406, 400 Seventh Streets S. W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Sloan:

I have enclosed for your review communication from Mr. Roy H. Herron regarding the regulations pertaining to the transporting of students to and from school.

It is my understanding that your regulations allow schools to use vans that Here manufactured on or before April 1, 1977 that do not comply with school bus safety standards, but the schools are not allowed to use new vans unless they comply with all the school bus safety standards.

I would appreciate your explaining these regulations and giving me an up to date status report of this case.

With kindest regards and Greetings of the Season,

Sincerely,

Strom Thurmond

ST/hk Enclosure

November 25, 1986

The Honorable Strom Thurmond The United States Senate Washington, D. C.

Attention Mr. Jeff Kull

Dear Sir:

This letter is follow-up to our conversation this date concerning the use of vans to transport school students to related events.

The more we read into this problem it appears that the Department of Transportation is concerned only with vehicles introduced into the transportation system.

The attached letter, dated March 22, 1979, from then Acting Chief Counsel Frank Berndt to Mr. Sterling Troxel states in paragraph three that "the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not regulate the sale or use of used vehicles. Therefore , there would be no Federal penalty upon a person selling such a used vehicle for school use."

This whole set of regulation is arbitrary. Under current regulations a church group can transport our school students on Saturday and/or Sunday in the same type vehicle we use and be legal.

Your assistance in getting this regulation changed or waived so that school districts can use vans designed to carry 15 passengers or less, including driver, will be appreciated.

Sincerely,

Roy H. Herron Superintendent

encls.

The Honorable Strom Thurmond United States Senator Senate Office Building Washington, D. C. 20515

Dear Senator Thurmond:

The purpose of this letter is to ask for your assistance. We have recently been made aware of Department of Transportation regulations (attached) that prohibit the use of vehicles designed to trans- port more than 10 passengers, that were manufactured af ter 1977, for the purpose of transporting school students unless the vehicle meets school bus specifications.

This school district and the vast majority of other districts in South Carolina use vans for transporting cheerleaders, small athletic teams, students on field trips and other academic related activities.

This regulation does not seem to be well thoughtout. Either a vehicle is safe to carry passengers or it is not; whether they be school children or adults. A van with its higher gross vehicle weight and seats installed higher than most other traffic is mu ch safer than a station wagon or automobile.

The impact of complying with this regulation is substantial. To replace our two vans with minibuses will cost our district $60,000 plus increased operating expenses. We are a small district, therefore, the impact on larger districts is even greater.

We have operated vans for many years with a perfect safety record. They serve a need most effectively and efficiently.

A remedy that will aid all school districts in South Carolina is for DOT to amend its regulation so that vehicles designed to carry 15 passengers or less be exempt from school bus standards. This change will not contribute to reduced safety for our stude nts.

Your assistance in this matter is most appreciated.

Sincerely,

Roy H. Herroxn Superintendent

(See letters from NHTSA to Sterling Troxel, Charles B. Honeycutt, Nebraska Dept. of Motor Vehicles and Kentucky Dept. of Education)