ID: nht91-3.32

DATE: April 29, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Eric G. Hoffman -- Russell & Hoffman, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-26-91 from Eric G. Hoffman to Harry Thompson (OCC 5892)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of March 26, 1991, addressed to Mr. Harry Thompson, asking about a private school's use of "mini-vans which are designed to carry more than 10 passengers." Your letter was referred to our office for reply. You stated that the school has become aware of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) and is concerned whether the operation of the vans is in compliance with applicable regulations under the Act. You asked a number of questions related to that concern.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to clarify the operation of Federal law as it applies to school buses. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) defines "school bus" as a motor vehicle designed for carrying 11 or more persons, including a driver, and sold for transporting students to and from school or school-related events. Therefore, the vehicles refered to in your letter would be considered school buses under federal law.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all new school buses. These standards impose obligations on the manufacturers and sellers of new motor vehicles, not upon the subsequent users of these vehicles. It is a violation of Federal law for any person to sell as a school bus any new vehicle that does not comply with all school bus safety standards. If your client believes that they have been sold noncomplying vehicles, and that the dealer knew of their intended use, the school should contact NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, at the address given above, and inform them of the apparent violation of Federal law.

Without violating any provision of Federal law, a school may use a vehicle to transport school children, even if the vehicle does not comply with Federal school bus regulations. This is so because the individual States have authority over the activities of a user of a school bus. Since the various questions you ask assume that the Safety Act regulates users of school buses, we are unable to provide specific answers to those questions. To determine whether the private school your firm represents may use noncomplying vans, you must look to state law.

I must emphasize NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students. I encourage the school your firm represents to give its most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting students in vehicles that do not comply with these regulations.

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

ID: aiam3371

Dear Mr. Mulligan: This is in response to your letter of October 1, 1980, in which you as whether compliance with 49 CFR 567, Certification, will satisfy the requirements of S4.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, 49 CFR 571.115.; Section 4.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 require that the vehicle identification number (VIN) 'appear clearly and indelibly upon either a part of the vehicle other than the glazing that is not designed to be removed except for repair or upon a separate plate or label which is permanently affixed to such a part.' S4.3.1 requires each character to appear in a capital, sans serif typeface. In the case of passenger cars and trucks of 10,000 pounds or less GVWR, each character must have a minimum height of 4 mm. S4.4 specifies that the VIN for passenger cars and trucks of 10,000 pounds or less GVWR shall be located within the passenger compartment.; Section 567.4 of Part 567, Certification (49 CFR 567), requires tha the certification label be permanently affixed to the vehicle, and display the vehicle identification number. Consequently, for all vehicles except passenger cars and trucks of 10,000 pounds or less GVWR, compliance with S 567.4 of Part 567 would also effect compliance with S4.3 of Standard No. 115 so long as capital, sans serif typeface was used.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0678

Dear Mr. Lundstrom: This is in reply to your letter of March 28, 1972, requestin elaboration of a statement made in the preamble to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 125, Warning Devices. You asked that the NHTSA identify the specific data it used in determining that with respect to wide angle positioning of the device, a lower minimum candlepower than that required by the E.C.E. Provides adequate protection.; As I said in my letter to you of March 27, 1972, in response to similar request, a large amount of material has been placed in this public docket as background for the rulemaking action. All of this material has been carefully studied by the NHTSA, and together with the expertise and judgment of NHTSA personnel, relied on in reaching the decisions involved in issuing this standard. In informal rulemaking proceedings, the decisions are based on the total weight of the agency's knowledge, not on particular items of information.; I will comment, however, that some of the materials relating to th passage that you quoted were submittals from Chrysler Corporation (Nr. 147) and the California Highway Patrol (Nr. 143), and the University of California report on triangle reflector performance (General Reference Nr. 17, Attachment 2).; Sincerely yours, Robert L. Carter, Acting Associate Administrator Motor Vehicle Programs;

ID: aiam0938

Dear Mr. O'Meara: Thank you for your letter of 29 November, 1972, concerning allege non-compliance of the Defect Information Report regarding Volkswagen Windshield Wipers, submitted by Volkswagen of America on October 12, 1972, with the requirements of NHTSA's Defect Reports Regulations, 49 CFR Part 573. We agree that Volkswagen has failed to supply information required by Sections 573.4(c)(2) and 573.4(c)(6) of the Regulation, specifically, the months of manufacture of the affected vehicles and a chronology which includes warranty claims, field service bulletins, and other such information. We are contacting Volkswagen to determine why the Company has failed to furnish that information and to attempt to obtain it. We also agree with your conclusion that 100% of 1948-1969 Volkswagens are potentially affected by the windshield wiper defect. However, Volkswagen's statement that 'no information is available' as to either the total number of such vehicles operating in the United States, or the percentage potentially affected satisfies the disclosure requirement of the regulation (49 CFR 573.4(c)(3, 4)).; We cannot agree, however, with your remaining assertions o non-compliance with the Regulations. While the Volkswagen Information Report is lacking in detail and is a poor example of an informational communication, it does contain minimal responses to the enumerated requirements of the Regulations.; Thank you for your interest in motor vehicle safety. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1470

Dear Mr. Goichman: This responds to your March 26, 1974, request for information on sea belt regulations as they concern reclining passenger seats.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, *Occupant Cras Protection,* requires passenger cars to be equipped with seat belt assemblies, but it does not contain performance requirements to regulate the effectiveness of the belt assembly with the seating system in the reclining position.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, *Seating Systems* specifies minimum safety requirements for motor vehicle seats. The requirements of the standard are based on conventional seat designs that normally incorporate a seat back angle of approximately 25 degrees rearward inclination from the vertical. Standard No. 207 requires that reclining seats be tested in their most upright position and does not require seats to be tested in the reclining position.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 preempt state motor vehicle safety regulations which are not identical to the Federal standards with regard to the same aspect of performance and therefore any state law would be identical to Standards Nos. 207 and 208 on these aspects of performance (15 U.S.C. S 1392 (d)).; The engineering staff is not aware of any studies in the area of sea belts and reclining seats.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2866

Dear Mr. Kurre: This responds to your recent letter asking whether Safety Standard No 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*, does require side- facing seats in multipurpose passenger vehicles to comply with one of the options under paragraph S4.2.2, since the side-facing seats in question would be considered designated seating positions. If a manufacturer chooses to install seat belts under one of the options of that paragraph, the seat belt assemblies must comply with Safety Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*, and Safety Standard No. 210, *Seat Belt Anchorages*.; Safety Standard No. 210 does exempt side-facing seats from its strengt requirements, but all other requirements of the standard would be applicable. However, we strongly recommend that belt anchorages for side-facing seats be of at least equivalent strength to anchorages for forward and rearward facing seats, since the strength specifications are only minimum performance requirements. Side-facing seats were excepted from the strength requirements specified in the standard because the forces acting on side-facing seats are different from those acting on forward or rearward facing seats and the requirements and procedures were specifically developed for these latter seats.; Please contact this office if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2225

Dear Mr. Baudhuin: This is in response to your January 29, 1976, letter to Secretar Coleman, concerning problems with your 22 foot Executive 'MINI' Motorhome.; SS 567.4(g)93) and 567.5(a)(5) of 49 CFR Part 567, *Certification* provide that a motor vehicle's Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) shall; >>>not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated carg load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity.<<<; Your letter and its enclosures indicate that your vehicle's weight i 9180 pounds, its designated seating capacity is six, and the GVWR specified by Executive is 9000 pounds. From this information, there appears to be a violation by Executive of Part 567. In addition, the possibility that the rear axle may be overloaded under normal conditions of use may constitute a defect related to motor vehicle safety. I have forwarded your letter to our Office of Standards Enforcement for such further action as may be appropriate.; Please note that a final-stage manufacturer is not automaticall prohibited from certifying a GVWR that differs from that specified by the chassis manufacturer. For the purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations, Executive is free to certify a lower GVWR, provided the above-cited constraint is observed.; The remaining questions presented in your letter are not matters ove which we have jurisdiction, and probably are most appropriately handled by a private attorney.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1735

Dear Mr. Danis: This is in response to your letter of October 23, 1974, requesting ou comments on your West Coast type mirror (which includes a ground-in convex spot mirror) and information on Federal regulations for spot mirrors in general.; Standard No. 111, *Rearview Mirrors*, provides minimum performanc requirements for rearview mirrors on passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles. According to the standard, the outside rearview mirror required to be placed on the driver's side of the vehicle must be furnish the driver with a specified field of view to the rear of substantially unit magnification. As long as the mirror is capable of satisfying these field view requirements, the inclusion of a convex spot mirror no the plane mirror (as with the West Coast mirror) is not prohibited by the standard. If your West Coast type mirror is capable of providing the required view of substantially unit magnification independent of its convex spot mirror, it will comply with the standard.; The recent notice proposing to amend the rearview mirror standard (Ma 1, 1974, 39 FR 15143), does not alter the above described permissible use of West Coast type mirrors. No requirements for spot mirrors are contained in the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; We appreciate your interest. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1580

Dear Mr. Jones: This responds to Dura Corporation's July 24, 1974, questions whethe S5.6 of Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems*, requires parking brakes on air suspension liftable axles, and whether the 'no lockup' requirements of the standard apply to a liftable axle on a 'tandem axle rig'.; The parking brake performance options of S5.6 do not require parkin brakes on an air suspension liftable axle such as you describe. S5.6.2 requires only that the parking brakes installed on a vehicle meet minimum performance levels. S5.6.1 requires parking brake retardation force on 'an axle other than a steerable front axle'. We do not consider this requirement to apply to an axle which is not on the ground when the parking brake system is activated.; The standard's 'no lockup' requirement (S5.3.1) applies to >>>'any wheel at speeds above 10 mph except for . . . (b) Lockup of wheels on nonsteerable axles other than the two rearmos nonliftable, nonsteerable axles on a vehicle with more than two nonsteerable axles.<<<; Under this provision, if a vehicle has two nonliftable, nonsteerabl axles at the rear which do not lock up (such as an antilock-equipped tandem axle rig) it may be equipped with a liftable nonsteerable axle which does not meet the 'no lockup' requirements.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel.

ID: aiam1744

Dear Mr. Kennebeck: This responds to Volkswagen's December 11, 1974, request fo confirmation that the deletion of the ignition interlock requirement from Standard No. 208, *Occupant crash protection*, does not have the effect of prohibiting installation of an interlock device in a vehicle which meets the requirements of S4.1.2.; Volkswagen will utilize a passive belt system in satisfaction of th requirements of S4.1.2. Passive belts are subject to specific belt assembly requirements of S4.5.3.3. These requirements were recently modified by deletion of the requirement for a belt interlock system (39 FR 38380, October 31, 1974), and passive belt assemblies must now conform to S7.1 (Adjustment), S7.2 (Latch mechanism), and S7.3 (Seat belt warning system).; Your interpretation of these requirements is correct. The Federal moto vehicle safety standards are minimum performance requirements with which each vehicle to which they are applicable must comply. They do not, however, prohibit installation of additional safety devices. As a practical matter, of course, additional devices could not be installed if that installation had the effect of causing the required systems not to comply.; The NHTSA agrees than (sic) an interlock system is important fo ensuring use of a passive belt system.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel