ID: nht94-7.9

DATE: April 1, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Marc D. Marutani -- National Truck Sales Manager, ARI (Mt. Laurel, NJ)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/31/94 from Marc D. Marutani -- National Truck Sales Manager, ARI (OCC 9660)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of January 31, 1994, requesting an interpretation of whether a 15-passenger Ford Econoline Wagon would be considered a school bus. "The client requesting the vehicle is a mental health and substance abuse facility handling adolescents on a full-time on-site basis. There is a school located on the premises, since the children reside at the location. The vehicle's purpose would primarily be used for miscellaneous transportation of juvenile patients and facility personnel, both on and off campus, as opposed to providing commuting services to and from home."

I am pleased to have this opportunity to clarify our requirements for school buses. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, including new school buses. NHTSA defines "school bus" as a motor vehicle designed for carrying 11 or more persons, including a driver, which "is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools." It is a violation of Federal law for any person to sell or lease any new vehicle that does not comply with all school bus safety standards if they are aware that the purchaser intends to use the vehicle as a school bus.

Whether you are required to sell or lease a certified school bus to your client depends on the anticipated use of the vehicle. The mental health and substance abuse facility operated by your client is not a school, however, it does operate a school on the premises. If your client were to purchase or lease a new bus to be used solely for transporting students to athletic events at other schools, it would be a violation of Federal law for you to sell or lease them a new vehicle that is not a school bus. This is because the vehicle would clearly be significantly used as a school bus. On the other hand, it is not a violation of Federal law for you to sell or lease them a new vehicle that is not a school bus if your client will use the vehicle for general purposes, even though such vehicles may be used occasionally to transport students to school- related events. Your letter states that the vehicle would be used for "miscellaneous transportation." If a significant portion of that use would not be transportation of students to school-related events, you are not required to sell or lease a school bus.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact us at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-8.1

DATE: March 8, 1994

FROM: David A. Scott -- President, RKS International L.L.C.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/25/94 from John Womack to David A. Scott (A42; Part 591)

TEXT:

After contacting your Chicago representative, I was informed that you were the authoritative person qualified to respond to my inquiries.

RK Technologies, Inc. is a Wisconsin Corporation. We deal mostly with China. We are presently considering importing from China to the United States fiberglass kit cars. Our consideration is to import the cars either disassembled or partially assembled in China. We will then be providing and/or installing American parts in the U.S., for the major mechanical portions like engines, transmissions, suspension systems, tires,etc. The cars will be sold in the United States.

Please provide us with the information guidelines and/or restrictions that will have to be met to ensure compliance with the possible imports and with the assembling and circulation of cars in the U.S.

I would appreciate your prompt attention and response and I thank you in advance.

ID: nht94-8.10

DATE: February 15, 1994

FROM: Thomas D. Turner -- Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company

TO: George Entwistle -- Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA

COPYEE: Robert Hellmuth -- OVSC, NHTSA; Thomas Turner -- Specialty Manufacturing Co.

TITLE: NEF-31GEn/NCI 3302

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/8/94 from John Womack to Thomas Turner (A42; Std. 131); Also attached to letter dated 1/26/83 from Frank Berndt to Thomas D. Turner

TEXT:

Last Week I received by FAX an advanced copy of NCI 3302 concerning an apparent non-compliance of stop arms with strobe lights to FMVSS 131 Section S6.2.2, "Flash Rate." Blue Bird is forwarding a copy of NCI 3302 to our supplier of stop arms, Specialty Manufacturing Company in Pineville, North Carolina, so that they can determine if a non-compliance exists.

In studying the requirements of S5.3, a question has arisen. S5.3 Conspicuity states "The stop signal arm shall comply with either S5.3.1 or S5.3.2, or both." Some of the stop arms we install are reflectorized and have strobe lights. Based on NCI 3302, it appears that the strobe lights do not comply with S6.2.2, so these stop arms do not comply with the "S5.3.2" or the "both" option of Section S5.3. However, these stop arms fully comply with the S5.3.1 option of Section S5.3; and the use of the strobe lights could be considered as optional lighting, not required by FMVSS 131 and therefore not required to meet the requirements of S6.2.

NOTE: As a general rule, supplemental lighting is permitted by Standard No. 108 as long as it does not "impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment" required by the standard. (See attached letter from Chief Counsel dated January 26, 1983.)

It is our understanding that a stop signal arm that fully complies with the requirements of S5.3.1 has satisfied the requirements of S5.3 Conspicuity, even if it has optional strobe lights installed that do not meet S5.3.2.

WE REQUEST CONFIRMATION THAT THE OVSC CONSIDERS A REFLECTORIZE STOP SIGNAL ARM THAT FULLY COMPLIES WITH S5.3.1 AS COMPLIANT WITH S5.3 WITH OR WITHOUT STROBE LIGHTS INSTALLED.

Your immediate response is needed so that we can proceed with work on our response to NCI 3302.

ID: nht94-8.11

DATE: February 14, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jane L. Dawson -- Specifications Engineer, Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/2/93 from Jane L. Dawson to Charlie Hott (OCC-9045)

TEXT:

This responds to your questions about a December 2, 1992, rule that amended Standard No. 111, Rear-view mirrors, by establishing field-of-view requirements around school buses (57 FR 57000). The rule amended Standard No. 111 to require a bus driver to be able to see, either directly or through mirrors, certain specified areas in front of and along both sides of school buses. I apologize for the delay in responding.

Your first question asks: Are we required to certify that the mirror system HAS THE ABILITY to be adjusted for viewing of the cylinders by a 25th percentile female or to certify that the mirror system HAS BEEN adjusted?

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, each new vehicle manufacturer must certify that its vehicle complies with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's). NHTSA evaluates a vehicle's compliance with the safety standards using the test procedures and conditions specified in the FMVSS's. Standard 111 requires that specified areas must be visible when viewed from the eye location of a 25th percentile adult female (S9, S13). The test procedures of S13 state that, when testing a school bus, NHTSA will adjust an adjustable mirror to the eye location of a 25th percentile adult female before the test, in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations (S13.3). Of course, to comply with Standard 111, the mirror will have to be able to be adjusted to the required location at the time NHTSA tests the vehicle.

Your second question asks: Are the outside rearview mirrors required to view the area straight down from the mirrors and 200 feet rearward?

In an October 21, 1993, telephone conversation with Marvin Shaw of my staff, you explained that you ask whether S9.2 of Standard 111 requires measurement beginning at the ground below the System A mirror (and extending at least 200 feet behind that plane).

The answer is yes, the mirror must provide a view of the area straight down from that mirror and extending 200 feet rearward. Section S9.2 states that each school bus must have two outside rearview mirror systems: A System A driving mirror and a System B convex cross view mirror. The System A mirror on the left side of the bus is required by S9.2(b)(2) to provide a view of "the entire top surface of cylinder M in Figure 2, AND OF THAT AREA OF THE GROUND WHICH EXTENDS REARWARD FROM THE MIRROR SURFACE not less than 60.93 meters (200 feet)" (emphasis added).

Please note that the agency is currently reviewing a rulemaking petition in which Blue Bird Body Company has requested that the agency amend

Standard No. 111, with respect to System A driving mirrors.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.

ID: nht94-8.12

DATE: February 14, 1994

FROM: Lawrence A. Beyer -- Attorney at Law

TO: Z. Taylor Vinson -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/7/94 from John Womack to Lawrence A. Beyer (A42; Std. 108)

TEXT:

This letter requests an opinion letter from your office concerning the re-importation of a certified vehicle.

My client wishes to re-import vehicles which were certified by the original manufacturer and purchased in the U.S. These vehicles would then be modified and sent back to the U.S. The vehicles in question are motorcycles which would then have a shell placed around it. The frame would be slightly modified and seating lowered to incorporate the design. However, my client would not knowingly render inoperative wholly or in part any device or element of design installed in accordance with the FMVSS.

On November 16, 1992, your office issued a letter regarding this matter. Please advise me if this letter is still your interpretation.

ID: nht94-8.13

DATE: February 14, 1994

FROM: Gary D. March -- Director, Illinois Department of Transportation, Division of Traffic Safety

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Docket No. 88-21; Notice No. 3; 57 FR 49413, November 2, 1992

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/24/94 from John Womack to Gary D. March (A42; Std. 217)

TEXT:

On November 2, 1992, NHTSA published a Final Rule which revised the minimum requirements for school bus emergency exits and improved access to school bus emergency doors. I am sure you would agree that the purpose of this rulemaking was to enhance the safety of children being transported in school buses. The Docket states that this Final Rule is effective May 2, 1994. We at the Illinois Department of Transportation interpret this Docket to mean school buses manufactured on or after May 2, 1994 must comply with these new standards.

In September of 1993, we were asked the following question by a school bus distributor here in Illinois:

Does the vehicle's "date of manufacture" correspond to the vehicle's chassis completion date or the vehicle's body completion date? In essence, he asked when do manufacturers have to comply with this Docket?

On September 27, 1993, Ms. Catherine Allen of my staff spoke to Mr. David Elias of NHTSA and asked him the above question. He indicated the date of manufacture is correlated to the vehicle's date of completion. The vehicle's date of completion corresponds to the date when the body and chassis are combined to form a completed vehicle. Therefore, we interpreted that answer to mean vehicles "combined" on or after May 2, 1994 must comply with this Docket.

On February 2, 1994, Ms. Allen spoke to Ms. Jane Dawson of Thomas Built Buses and asked if school buses manufactured on or after May 2, 1994 would meet the new standards. She replied, "Only if the chassis was manufactured on or after May 2, 1994." She indicated multi-stage manufacturers have the option of choosing the chassis manufacture date, the body manufacture date or a date in- between for the effective date of new standards.

On February 3, 1994, Ms. Allen spoke to Mr. Charles Hott of NHTSA and asked him the same question. He confirmed what Ms. Dawson had said.

Therefore, according to Mr. Hott's interpretation, a school bus which clearly displays a June 1994, or later, date of manufacture will not need to meet the standards of Docket 88-21 if the chassis was completed prior to May 2, 1994.

Since we have received two different interpretations from Mr. Elias and Mr. Hott, we are asking for an official interpretation from the agency. Currently, school districts are in the process of taking bids on buses that will be

delivered and perhaps have bodies mounted after May 2, 1994 to chassis manufactured prior to May 2, 1994. Therefore, I am sure you can understand the necessity of a prompt and official interpretation by your office.

If you need any additional information from us, please contact Mr. Larry Wort at 217/782-4974 or Ms. Catherine Allen at 217/785-1181. I will appreciate your expeditious response.

ID: nht94-8.14

DATE: February 14, 1994

FROM: Daniel T. Mason -- Product Development Engineer, Automotive Division, Avery Dennison

TO: Barbara Gray -- Office of Market Incentives, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/8/94 from John Womack to Daniel T. Mason (A42; Part 541)

TEXT:

The purpose of this letter is to ask for a ruling of the footprint requirements of the parts marking legislation, 541-Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard.

I am a Product Development Engineer working under Cliff Nastas for Avery Dennison. My question refers to the footprint feature of the label that appears under a UV light in the substrate after the label (illegible words).

Both Avery Dennison and (illegible word) supply parts marking labels to the automotive industry. Both have a florescent agent that migrates into the substrate once applied. Would a label that substitutes a florescent copy of the VIN instead of the whole footprint of the label be in compliance to the federal legislation?

Please inquire for a ruling on this. I will follow up this letter with a phone call to discuss any questions you may have in the next couple weeks.

ID: nht94-8.15

DATE: February 14, 1994

FROM: Lawrence A. Beyer, Esq.

TO: Z. Taylor Vinson, Esq. -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA/DOT

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/11/94 from John Womack to Lawrence A. Beyer (A42; Part 591; Part 592)

TEXT:

This letter requests an opinion latter from your office concerning a determination made my OVSC regarding the importation of vehicles from Canada.

OVSC has allowed the importation of vehicles which conform to Canadian safety standards, and U.S. safety standards with the exception of "minor labeling requirements." These vehicles must be for the owner's personal use.

OVSC has interpreted "personal use" to exclude importations of vehicles by corporations for their corporation's personal use. For example, an individual moving to the U.S. would be allowed to import a vehicle, provided he had a statement from the manufacturer that the vehicle complied with all FMVSS with the exception of labeling. However, a company moving to the U.S. with the identical vehicle and letter would be required to import the vehicle through the R.I. program, under bond, etc.

I agree that if the company was importing the vehicle for resale, the R.I. program is necessitated. I do not understand the distinction OVSC makes between individual personal use and corporate personal use.

Please provide me with an interpretation to settle this issue.

ATTACHMENT

PERMANENT IMPORTATION OF CANADIAN VEHICLES

PERSONAL USE (Not included - vehicles owned by business or used in commerce)

If an individual has a letter from the manufacturer stating that a Canadian vehicle was manufactured to comply with the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety, bumper and theft prevention standards (FMVSS), except minor labeling:

a. A letter is provided by our agency that it is satisfactory to import the vehicle under the Box 2 category on the declaration statement (Form HS 7).

b. The HS-7 form must be completed with Box 2 checked and a copy of the manufacturers letter and our correspondence must be attached.

c. If a manufacturers letter isn't available - a registered importer must be used.

FOR SALE

Such vehicles have to be imported by a registered importer (The RI is not necessarily the owner. If the vehicle manufacturer provides a letter that the vehicles comply except for minor labelling, we will require:

a. An HS-7 form indicating the registered importer (RI) as the importer of records. A Box 3 entry will be required.

b. A compliance package showing any modifications that were required including photos of the speedometer and Canadian certification label, DOT bond, and payment of appropriate fees.

c. Warranty Insurance Policy

MANUFACTURERS LETTERS

Since we have previously made a determination about Canadian vehicles that was published in the Federal Register, if a manufacturers letter is not available, the process also falls into a Box 3 category. We will require all of the items listed above. If a Canadian vehicle was built on or after September 1, 1989, if it is not on our approved-eligible vehicle list, and if the MANUFACTURER DOES NOT INCLUDE AUTOMATIC RESTRAINTS THAT COMPLY WITH STANDARD NO. 208, or any other crash survivability standard, a petition will be required and it will have to be entered as a Box 3 (formerly allowed for determination under Box 7).

HOWEVER

If the vehicle is equipped with the necessary automatic restraints and other modifications required to meet U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards but the manufacturers letter is not available, the RI DOES NOT have to petition if it can verify identicality with a car certified by its original manufacturer to meet the U.S. Standards by part numbers, drawings etc.

ID: nht94-8.16

DATE: February 14, 1994

FROM: Richard Kreutziger -- Executive Director, New York State Business Distributor Ass'n, Inc.

TO: Walter Myers -- Attorney Advisor, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/28/94 from John Womack to Richard Kreutziger (Std. 217; USA 103(d)); Also attached to letter dated 2/20/87 from Erika Z. Jones to Martin V. Chauvin

TEXT:

I am following up on the fax that I sent to you dated January 12, 1994.

As of this date - I have not received a response, to the question that was raised during our verbal conversation, and which I requested a formal written response in the aforementioned fax.

Will greatly appreciate your follow-up with the written formal response.

Another question has developed pertaining to the implementation of FMVSS 217 (amended). New York State school bus regulations - Chapter VI transportation regulations - article 3 safety part 721 requires two side emergency doors on vehicles of greater than 67 pupil capacity. New York State also - in the past has required the side emergency doors to be "to the rear of center of the passenger compartment?" - they have just recently amended their regulations to conform t the FMVSS as to location "as near center of passenger compartment" - and have also in my reading have required both the left and right side emergency doors in center - BUT not in the same body section. The question is raised by some of the manufacturers/distributors - can the right side emergency door be located to the rear of the passenger compartment?

TEXT OF RICHARD KREUTZIGER'S 1/12/94 FAX TO WALTER MYERS:

In a follow-up to our morning phone conversation of this date, I hereby formally request a written response (preferably by fax) to the point of discussion in reference to the ability of any individual state agency to require that an entity other than a political sub-division of the state (such as a school district) had only to meet the requirements/standards/regulations of NHTSA and not added individual state regulations, even if such regulations exceed the federal standards.

Example: "ABC" Central School - is required in their purchase of a school bus to transport students to and from home to school - and/or to transport students to school sponsored events - such vehicle must meet the prescribed FMVSS and to further meet the individual state regulations that exceed the FMVSS.

"XYZ" Bus Company - has a contract with "DEF" school district to transport the school pupils of the district to and from home to school, and/or school sponsored events. Because this entity is not a political sub-division the

state enforcement agency relating to school bus regulations can not mandate that this private enterprise meet the state regulations that exceed the FMVSS - the only requirements for this private entity and their school buses are those that are mandated by FMVSS.

I hope my interpretation of our phone conversation, reflects your

ID: nht94-8.17

DATE: February 14, 1994

FROM: Donald P. Green

TO: U.S. Department of Transportation -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 6/9/94 From John Womack To Donald Green (A42; Std. 109; 120)

TEXT: Gentlemen:

I am seeking official professional advice regarding the use of passenger radial tires on recreational--pull type--trailers.

I have made numerous inquiries to various tire dealers and in nearly every case they have refused to consider the installing of passenger radial tires on a trailer, stating that this tire's construction with a soft sidewall could cause an uncontrollable swaying condition that could result in a serious accident. They would only install special trailer tires or light truck tires that have stiff sidewalls and are designed to operate at higher pressures resulting in a harder ride but stable condition.

I had the misfortune, in an emergency situation, allowing a professional tire dealer to install a set (4) passenger radials (P215-75R15) on a 1989 trailer, since they did not have one tire to match the F78-15ST "C" rating tires that were supplied with the trailer from the manufacturer.

The result was that several months later I became the victim of an upset of the trailer and the towing vehicle, that was triggered by a cross-following wind that caused the soft sidewall tires to squish to one side, forcing the tow vehicle into the adjoining left lane of a two lane divided highway. When I attempted to correct the tow vehicle the trailer reversed its attitude, overcame the Reese anti-sway systems and went into a horrifying jackknifing that ended with both trailer and tow vehicle overturned. My passenger and I were using lap and shoulder harnesses and escaped without injury. No other vehicles were involved. The 1990 GMC Suburban received $ 8,000.00 damage, the trailer was cashed out by the insurance company.

I have checked with the dealer that installed the passenger radials and he claims no responsibility or negligence, saying tires were of correct size and load carrying capacity, and that there is no regulation, local, state or federal, that prohibits installing radial passenger tires on a trailer. It does seem odd that this application is allowed since it seems to be the opinion of most tire dealers that the use of these tires on trailers is a hazard to both the driver of the tow vehicle and other approaching or passing vehicles.

I do not believe that I was an isolated case, and have since heard of similar accidents happening from the same cause.

Your advice and reply would be appreciated.

Sincerely yours,