ID: 77-2.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/01/77 EST

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: National School Transportation Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In reply to your letter to Fred Vetter of May 6, 1977, concerning the knee room required for passengers in a small school bus, I think it is essential for your members to understand that the terms "Type I" and "Type II" are meaningless in the context of the motor vehicle safety standards. There is a difference in the seat spacing requirements for large buses and small buses, but in deciding which spacing a particular bus must meet, the manufacturers must use the criteria of the standards under 49 CFR Part 571, and not the Type I/Type II distinction.

In dealing with the motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses, two criteria determine the applicability of various requirements: seating capacity and vehicle weight. The seating capacity of a vehicle determines whether a vehicle is to be considered a school bus. Under the definitions of bus and school bus in 49 CFR @ 571.3, the critical number of passengers is 10. If a motor vehicle is designed to carry "more than 10 persons," it is a bus. If a bus is sold "for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events" it is a school bus. All school buses must conform to the applicable requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection.

Standard No. 222, however, makes the criterion of weight relevant in determining the spacing between seats. In a bus with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of more than 10,000 pounds, section 5.2 of the standard requires each passenger seat to have either a seat back or a restraining barrier within 20 inches of the "seating reference point," a design point that is roughly 5.2 inches forward of the seat back. Measured from the seat back, therefore, all school buses with GVWR's of more than 10,000 pounds must provide "knee room" of not more than about 25.2 inches. School buses with GVWR's of 10,000 pounds or less do not have to meet the spacing requirements.

Any school buses that your members purchase will therefore have to meet the spacing requirements of Standard No. 222 if they weigh more than 10,000 pounds. This weight corresponds roughly to a bus with a seating capacity of 14-17 persons, so that most "Type I" school buses would have to meet the spacing requirements, and most "Type II" buses would not. Always keep in mind that it is the school bus's weight, not its seating capacity, that determines the applicability of the spacing requirement.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

National School Transportation Association MAY 6, 1977

Fred Vetter -- Associate Administrator, NHTSA Safety programs

Dear Mr. Vetter:

RE: Type II Buses

It seems appropriate to bring you up to date on the Type II Bus Saga . . . . . . .

Further discussions with Bob Kure from Wayne and finally with Tim Hoyt of the NHTSA did bring out the fact that the knee room is not a problem in the Type II Buses as earlier stated by our Association.

There are still problems in that Dodge has now dropped out of the market and Chevrolet has yet to certify their chassis. At the moment there is no chassis available to the Type II market. (Ford has not been involved since the April 1 regulations came into being).

The frustration we feel at this time is indeed great. In dialogue with 4 manufacturers of these vehicles and many state directors, the notion that the 25.2" knee room applies to Type II School Buses still abounds. In fact, one Regional Highway Administrator is telling all of his states that 25.2" is fact for both Type II and Type I school buses.

When I first raised the question at the Motor Vehicle Programs Sector, this was told to me as being the truth after I was asked the question by a State Director. That day Tim Hoyt was not in, but someone of his superiors did take the call and confirm that Type II buses need 25.2" knee room and the seat belts. I fussed at this and indicated it would not work and was told "Congress gave us this short time constraint and we did the best we could . . . and we spent a lot of thought about these matters . . . . even if you think we did not". Based on that conversation, I went forth concerned and upset that the Special Education buses would not fit the needs of the children being transported.

We still have concerns and will be reponding to the Activity Bus problems and others as they develop. Your time and attention during our distress is appreciated. If only we could get better answers when we need them!

Sincerely,

BILLIE REYNOLDS

ID: 77-2.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/03/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Krystal Glass Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 11, 1977, question whether the stained glass portholes manufactured by your company for use on van vehicles have to comply with Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. You contend that since the portholes are backed by complying safety glazing the intent of Standard No. 205 is met, even though the stained glass itself is not safety glazing.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) cannot agree with your interpretation. Standard No. 205 specifies performance requirements for glazing material for use in specified locations in motor vehicles. All parts of your stained glass porthole windows must comply with the requirements of the standard. The safety glazing that backs your portholes could be damaged during a crash and the vehicle occupants could be exposed to the noncomplying stained glass. The NHTSA, therefore, disagrees with your conclusion that the intent of Standard No. 205 is met by the Krystal Glass porthole windows.

You should be aware that paragraph S6.2 of the standard requires a prime glazing material manufacturer to certify each piece of glazing material that is designed as a component of any specific motor vehicle or camper pursuant to Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended, (15 U.S.C. @ 1381, et. seq.), and by marking the glazing with the "DOT" symbol and a manufacturer's code mark. A prime glazing material manufacturer is defined as one who fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material. A manufacturer's code mark is assigned by the NHTSA upon the written request of a manufacturer.

Enclosed is a copy of the ANS Z26 standard, as requested in your telephone conversation with Hugh Oates of this office.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

MARCH 11, 1977

Frank Berndt

Subject: Stained Glass Portholes, with safty glass backing.

Dear sir,

In our research to insure that Stained Glass Portholes were a safe and legal product, we have met and discussed the product with both State and Federal officials. Our first step was directed toward approval from the California Division of Highway Patrol - Engineering Division. Stained Glass Portholes, backed with safety glazing, (AS-2) were shown to a Mr. Robert Sheppard. He held the Portholes for inspection by his department until he was assured that we had a safe product, (one that complies with the safety codes). He telephoned Krystal Glass Co. on 3, March 1977 and gave an assurance that we had a safe product and that it was ok to go ahead with manufacturing.

We proceeded to manufacture and market our windows until 8, March 1977. On this day a Federal Official, Mr. Joseph Zamaitas, contacted our company and informed us we were required to meet Federal Safety Standard #205, also that we possibly needed a manufactures code number. Therefore would you please consider our question. If we install Automotive Safety Glazing (AS-4) or Laminated Safety Glass (AS-2) on the inside portion of the unit, towards the passenger compartment, does this comply with the intent of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #205?

Besides protecting the passenger compartment with an approved Safety Glazing, we were concerned with the shattering effects of our Stained Glass Plate. After testing the evidence, it is quite clear that the shattered glass was contained within the leaded channels.

We have submitted the Stained Glass Porthole that we tested for your inspection, also included are two undamaged protholes for your inspection.

Your rapid reply to our question in regards to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #205, would be greatly appreciated.

Thank You,

John Watson -- Krystal Glass Co.

ID: 77-2.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/03/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin Jr.; NHTSA

TO: E.D. Etnyre & Co.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 30, 1977, letter asking whether the rebuilding of a motor vehicle with all new running gear and an old body constitutes the manufacture of a new motor vehicle requiring compliance with Federal regulations.

In the rebuilding operation you describe, you retain the old body tank structure while replacing the entire running gear assembly. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has determined by regulation in 49 CFR 571.7(f) that the rebuilding of a motor vehicle using old running gear with a new body does not constitute the manufacture of a new motor vehicle. The vehicle will be considered newly manufactured unless, at a minimum, the trailer running gear assembly is not new and was taken from an existing trailer whose identity is continued with respect to the Vehicle Identification Number. In addition, the trailer must be owned or leased by the same party both before and after the remanufacture. Since the running gear with which you plan to equip your vehicle is new, your operation constitutes the new manufacture of a vehicle.

You ask secondly what portion of the running gear can be replaced as normal repairs without such replacement being considered the manufacture of a new vehicle. You may replace any part of the running gear assembly that breaks or malfunctions during operation of the motor vehicle. The NHTSA would consider this to be normal maintenance of the vehicle, not subject to the requirements applicable to vehicle manufacture.

SINCERELY,

E.D. ETNYRE & CO.

March 30, 1977

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attention: Legal Counsel

We are manufacturers of tank type truck bodies and trailers with running gear.

On a somewhat irregular basis, we receive requests from users of this equipment to perform certain repairs.

Our specific question at this time relates to repairs done to the running gear of trailers and whether an involvement with 49CFR 571.7(f) concerning new and used components is incurred.

1. If the present tank structure and upper fifth wheel coupler are reused in conjunction with a totally new running gear assembly, is the vehicle still a used vehicle for the purpose of the applicability ruling regarding conformance to federal regulations?

2. If the preceding answer is no, what portion of the running gear - wheels, axles, brakes and suspension - can be replaced as normal repairs without changing the status to "new"?

For the purpose of this inquiry the vehicle identification is continued and ownership is retained.

Jackson Decker Chief Product Engineer

ID: 77-2.47

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: June 3, 1977

FROM: Joseph J. Levin, Jr. -- Chief Counsel

TO: Larry J. Stroble

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-3-90 from P.J. Rice to R.B. Roden (A36; Std. 205); Also attached to letter dated 7-19-90 from R.B. Roden to P.J. Rice (OCC 5036)

TEXT:

This responds to your April 20, 1977, letter asking whether your client, a manufacturer of radiator cooling fans and air conditioner/heater fans, must comply with the requirements for certification found in Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1968 (the Act) (15 U.S.C. 1381 et sec.).

Section 114 of the Act requires manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment to certify that each such vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Since there are no safety standards in effect which regulate the items of equipment to which you refer, your client would not be required to perform the certification outlined in Section 114 and in the regulation promulgated thereunder (49 CFR Part 567).

You should note that as an equipment manufacturer your client might have some responsibilities under the Act with respect to defect notifications and recalls if he were to manufacture an item of equipment that contained a defect related to motor vehicle safety. These responsibilities are outlined in the Act in Section 151 et seq.

ID: 77-2.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/09/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: TTMA

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 16, 1977, letter in which you ask for an interpretation of the certification label requirements of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, as they apply to trailers.

In your first question, you ask whether a trailer manufacturer may conform with the certification requirements in any one of three ways: list the GVWR and GAWR with the corresponding tires, rims, and inflation pressure with which the trailer is equipped; list all suitable combinations with the required information as shown in the example appearing in Standard No. 120; or list only the maximum GVWR and maximum GAWR with the proper tires, rims, and inflation pressure, plus the GVWR and GAWR of the trailer with the tires, rims, and inflation pressure with which it is equipped. According to the requirements of Standard No. 120, any of the three methods outlined above would appear to be acceptable.

Your second question presents a sample certification plate which lists all of the axles on the trailer. You ask whether it is permissible, where the data for all axles is identical, to list the proper tires, rims, and inflation pressure for the front axle then merely state "Same as Front" for the remaining axles rather than repeat the same data for all axles. The label requirements of the standard do not permit the approach you suggest. You must list all data for each axle. You should note that there is a proposal to amend Part 567, Certification, to permit a simplification of label requirements when the data for all axles is identical. I am enclosing a copy of this proposal for your information.

SINCERELY,

Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

March 16, 1977

Fred Koch Office of Crash Avoidance National Highway Safety Administration

S. 120 - Tire Clarification

It is our understanding that if a trailer manufacturer has several tire options for a trailer model, such as 10.00 x 20, 10.00 x 22, and 10.00 radial x 22, then he may note this at least three different ways on the certification label per S. 120.

(a) He may list the GVWR and the corresponding GAWR with the tires, rims, and inflation pressure as the trailer is equipped. That is, he may have three labels to choose from, depending on the tires selected by the purchaser.

(b) He may list the GVWR and the corresponding GAWR with the tire, rims, and inflation pressure for each option as shown in the example in S. 120.

(c) He may list the maximum GVWR and the corresponding maximum GAWR with the tires, rims, and inflation pressure yielding the maximum rating and the GVWR and the corresponding GAWR with the tires, rims, and inflation pressure for the trailer as equipped.

Since some European tire manufacturers do not use the "R" in their tire size designation to indicate radial it is understood that the trailer manufacturer may add the note that the stated inflation pressure is for radial tires.

It is also our understanding that where all axles on a trailer are similar, that the certification plate may state:

GVWR: x x x x

GAWR: Front - x x x x with x x x x tires, x x x rims, at xx psi cold dual.

First Intermediate - Same as Front

Second Intermediate - Same as Front

Rear - Same as Front

Please inform us if our understanding of S. 120 is correct.

Don W. Vierimaa Engineering Manager

cc: TTMA ENGINEERING COMMITTEE

ID: 77-2.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/09/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Coach & Equipment Sales Corp.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 6, 1977, letter asking what standards apply to vehicles designed to transport fewer than 10 passengers to or from school.

Vehicles that transport fewer than 10 passengers to or from school are not considered buses according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) definition of "bus" found in 49 CFR Part 571.3. Accordingly, these vehicles transporting fewer than 10 passengers would not need to comply standards applicable to either school buses or buses in general. The vehicles to which you refer would be required to comply with standards applicable to passenger cars or multipurpose passenger vehicles depending upon the type of vehicle being used to transport children. Your should consult Part 571.3 (enclosed) of our regulations to determine the classification of the vehicle you intend to construct since the vehicle classification establishes the applicability of the standards.

SINCERELY,

Coach & Equipment Sales Corporation

May 6, 1977

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel United States Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

I first want to thank you very much for your response to my questions pertaining to Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection.

My question today involves, I believe, proper certification, identification and standards compliance. I hope I am correct in the above description of the question as offered herein.

It is our belief that by terms of Federal definition, "a bus" incorporated 10 passengers or more, exclusive of the driver. "A school bus" is subject to the above passenger load and is further defined as a bus that is sold, or introduced in interstate commerce, for purposes, that include carrying students to and from school or related events, but not include a bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation. If the above facts are correct, then my question is as follows.

What certification, and thus, what Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards will apply to a vehicle designed primarily and used exclusively to transport students to and from school or related events, which has a passenger load of less than 10?

I am, of course, referring to a vehicle that transports primarily handicapped students Sample floor plans depicting wheelchair locking positions and some seat positions are enclosed. As you can readily see, both floor plans have less than 10 passengers.

We will certainly appreciate your answer to the questions presented and if you desire any additional details, please do not hesitate to call upon us.

RICHARD L. KREUTZIGER Executive Vice President

ID: 77-2.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/29/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Marchal America - Western Region

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 9, 1977, to Mr. Vinson of this office asking for clarification of the effect of the preemption section of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act upon the use of quartz iodine headlamps by State fire and police organizations. Your letter was prompted by mine of January 18, 1977, to Jack D. Gross, Jr., National Sales Manager of Marchal America, in which I concluded that the preemption section was inapplicable to the conversion of vehicles by owners after initial manufacture.

Title 15 U.S.C. @ 1392(d) reads in pertinent part:

"Nothing in the section shall be construed to prevent . . . the government of any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to . . . motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement establishes a higher standard of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable federal standard."

In my opinion, the preemption language is irrelevant to your primary concern of assuring local agencies that the Federal government has no objection to their use of headlamps that do not comply with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

As I explained to Mr. Gross, the purpose of the preemption doctrine is to ensure uniform national manufacturing standards reserving to States and political subdivisions thereof the right to establish standards setting a higher level of performance on vehicles procured for their own use.

We have always construed this language narrowly. You have not informed us of the existence of any State law, municipal ordinance, or any other legislative act by a State or political subdivision establishing a level of performance for headlamps on publicly owned vehicles, that a manufacturer must meet, and thus the preemption question, in a legal sense, does not arise.

Instead, you have presented the situation of a few State and local agencies (city police, highway patrol, fire department, sheriff) who wish to substitute quartz iodine headlamps on publicly owned vehicles. Although 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A) prohibits the removal of vehicle equipment installed in accordance with a safety standard, that prohibition does not extend to the vehicle owner. Thus, there is no Federal legal objection to any interested State or local agency replacing its conventional headlamps with quartz iodine ones. Indeed, we would be interested in knowing the views of these agencies after a period of use.

We understand from your letter that the headlamps in question are imported as conforming to the motorcycle headlamp requirements of SAE J584, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. As long as the headlamps do not exceed the candlepower maxima established by J584, and are not advertised or sold to the general public as suitable for use on passenger cars Marchal America would not appear to be violating the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

SINCERELY,

MARCHAL AMERICA WESTERN REGION

February 9, 1977

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

ATTN: Taylor Vinson

Re: Your File No. N40-30

This is in reply to your correspondence dated January 18, 1977 and our phone conversation on February 7, 1977 regarding headlamp replacements.

Semi-sealed H-4 Iodine headlamp replacements are currently being used by the Highway Patrol, Sheriff, City Police, Fire and Highway Departments in ten of the eleven states in my region. The primary usage of these lamps is in critical need rural areas. General usage is prohibitive because these units cost four to five times more than standard units. Each department that has installed these units conducted cost vs. benefits testing. In each case the results were consistent. Benefits are:

Low Beam: 1. Less glare to opposing drivers;

2. More uniform light pattern on road and shoulder;

3. Light color makes it easier on eyes;

4. Dramatic reduction of whiteout caused by stray vertical light in fog and snow.

High Beam: 1. Besides the obvious increase in distance, peripheral vision is greatly increased allowing the operators to see pedestrians, side traffic and livestock at a great enough distance to allow them to react safely. High beam is primarily used in Code 2 or Code 3 operation where standard headlamps don't give adequate illumination for safe operation of high speed emergency vehicles.

Additional

Benefits: 1. If a rock or debris cracks the lens, you don't lose your headlight in a critical emergency situation;

2. Bulb life span is comparable to standard units and the intensity doesn't deteriorate with age.

We are not talking about an experimental unit that has never been tested. These headlamps are manufactured under the extremely tough international lighting standards known as the "E" or European Code. Every other country in the world has now adopted this standard including our neighbors in Canada. These headlamps are in daily use by some of the most respected state and local safety organizations in the country.

The reason I asked for the clarification on 15 U.S.C. 1392(d) was because the California Highway Patrol has an extremely hazardous fog condition in their central valley. They were interested in testing these units because of their low beam qualities in fog and snow, but they wanted 1392(d) interpreted in writing to make sure it was o.k.

The pertinent part of Section 1392(d) reads:

"Nothing in the section shall be construed to prevent . . . the government of any state or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement establishes a higher standard of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable federal standard."

My interpretation of this section prior to your letter was our headlamp came under the classification of motor vehicle equipment and in each case of its use a higher standard of performance was established in both public and operator safety with the use of this unit.

These units are being imported under federal standard 108 J584 for motorcycle use. The spread from motorcycle to vehicle usage starts when a police department discovers that the headlamps that work so well in their motorcycles plug right into their patrol cars.

The international lighting standard mandates that the bulbs be interchangable regardless of the manufacturer, reflector size or shape of the lamp. This was done so that no matter where you travelled, replacement bulbs would be readily available regardless of the type of vehicle.

I respectfully submit these comments for you to consider.

CHAD DORNSIFE

ID: 77-2.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/10/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Embassy of the Socialist Republic of Romania

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter of April 5, 1977, requesting that the Office of the Economic Counselor be designated as the agent for Uzina de Anvelope Danubiana, upon whom process may be served in the United States.

Section 551.45 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations specifies that the agent be a permanent resident of the United States. It may be an individual, firm, or domestic corporation. The Office of the Economic Counsel, as part of the Embassy, cannot be classified as a permanent resident of the United States. It is not a firm or domestic corporation within the meaning of 49 CFR Part 551.45.

Therefore, we will have to request that Uzina de Anvelope Danubiana designate another individual as its agent, pursuant to section 110(e) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1399(e)).

ID: 77-2.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/08/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Wayne Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 22, 1977, letter asking whether a restraining barrier in front of a seat with a back higher than that required in S5.1.2 of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, must coincide with or lie outside of the perimeter of the extended seat back.

The requirements for restraining barrier surface area are found in paragraph S5.2.2 of the standard. That section states that: "in a front projected view of the bus, each point of the barrier's perimeter coincides with or lies outside of the perimeter of the seat back of the seat for which it is required." The seat back of the seat for which a restraining barrier is required has dimensions specified in S5.1.2 of the standard. Therefore, a restraining barrier must only coincide with or lie outside of the seat back surface required by S5.1.2. If a seat back surface exceeds the size required in Standard No. 222, the size of the restraining barrier need not coincide.

SINCERELY,

Wayne Corporation

February 22, 1977

Frank R. Berndt Office of Chief Counsel NHTSA

This inquiry is in reference to FMVSS 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, as applied to school buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds.

Must the perimeter of a barrier located in front of a seat having a back higher than that required by Section S5.1.2 coincide with or lie outside of the perimeter of the extended seat back?

Your prompt attention to this matter and an early reply will be greatly appreciated.

Robert B. Kurre Director of Engineering

ID: 77-2.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/08/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Wisconsin School Bus Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 5, 1977, letter asking for an interpretation concerning the definition of school bus. In particular you ask how the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration determines the seating capacity of a motor vehicle which in turn determines whether that vehicle will be considered a school bus for purposes of our regulations.

You are correct in your interpretation that a van designed to carry fewer than 10 passengers may transport children to or from school and need not comply with the new school bus safety standards. The NHTSA determines the seating capacity of a motor vehicle by the number of designated seating positions in the vehicle. The term "designated seating position" is defined in Part 571.3 of our regulations (49 Code of Federal Regulations) to mean: ". . . any plan view location intended by the manufacturer to provide seating accommodation while the vehicle is in motion for a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, except auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats." Thus, as long as a van purchased for pupil transportation has fewer than 10 designated seating positions for passengers, it is not considered a school bus and need not comply with school bus safety standards.

SINCERELY,

March 5, 1977

Frank A. Berndt Acting Chief Counsel Federal D.O.T. Nat'l Hwy. Traffic Safety Adm.

We are somewhat unclear as to the meaning and intent of the federal definitions of "school buses" and "vehicles" sold for use as school buses - or being used in pupil transportation - as they apply to vehicle size or passenger capacity.

The State of Wisconsin is presently revising its Administrative Rules governing pupil transportation. It is intended that these proposed revisions will correspond with all federal definitions and regulations. The area that needs clarification is the use of "van-type" vehicles.

We have been given to understand that "vehicles" manufactured for use in pupil transportation require the manufacturer to comply with federal construction standards effective April 1, 1977. Manufacturers of "van-type" vehicles, such as the Chrysler Corp, General Motor and Ford Motor Company, have advised us that the federal regulations apply to these vehicles also, and for that reason, it is their intention not to manufacture a "school van" for sale for use in pupil transportation.

If this information is correct, we would believe that, except for a van "converted" to comply with federal regulations, no van-type vehicle manufactured after April 1, 1977 will be available for use in pupil transportation.

However, it is held that anyone may purchase and use a "van-type" vehicle for use in pupil transportation even though it is manufactured after April 1, 1977 . . . . if the vehicle transports less than 10 persons. Is this a correct interpretation? If so, how does one "measure" a vehicle's passenger carrying capacity?

We believe this area of the federal regulations to be most unclear. If a vehicle transporting "under 10 persons" was exempt from the regulations, then "van-type" vehicles of all sizes could be purchased for use in pupil transportation . . . . as long as its seating capacity was restricted.

We would hope you would enlighten us on this matter, for we are, to say the least, confused.

WISCONSIN SCHOOL BUS ASSOCIATION

Dick Rechlicz Executive Secretary