ID: nht90-1.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/01/90

FROM: JOHN GARRINGER -- INNOVATION CENTER DRAFTING DEPARTMENT

TO: TERRY M. GERNSTEIN

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/18/90 FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE -- NHTSA TO JOHN W. GARRINGER; A35; STANDARD 205; LETTER DATED 05/07/90 FROM JOHN W. GARRINGER TO STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA; OCC 4751

TEXT: You have a good idea, but some people would like it plain. If they put it in the glass later on, it would be better plain. If some people would like it with a decoration on it, after we get it on the market we can do it for them. But it is not a novel ty item, it is for safety. So for now, lets get the design patent first.

HOOD GLARE (Design)

The design is; anything that covers the glare that comes from the hood of a car, truck, boat, airplane, or anything that has a hood and windshield, that you can put it on. This will stop the suns glare from coming into the drivers eyes, so he or she can see better. It might become a law, and they will put it inside the glass; (because of being a safety item).

The reason I said plastic is because it's the best and easiest thing to use. But you can use paper, cloth, cardboard, or whatever, just as long as it covers the area, so that the suns glare doesn't hit the drivers eyes.

I have the darkness for the plastic that it will make the suns glare look like a ball, if you have sunglasses on, or a very little glare if you don't have them on. If you put the strip all the way across the windshield you can still see through it.

But if you think that its better to go with your decoration on it, you can go ahead with it, you know what's best since it is your line of work. I do think it would be a good idea to have it decorated and plain and in various colors.

Very Truly Yours,

John Garringer

[DRAWING OF HOOD GLARE OMITTED]

ID: 86-4.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/25/86

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: WILLA BLACK KENNEDY -- JOINT INTERIM COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION BUREAU OF LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH ARKANSAS

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 04/01/86, TO ERIKA Z. JONES FROM WILLA BLACK KENNEDY, OCC - 0441

TEXT: Dear Ms. Kennedy:

This responds to your April 1, 1986, letter asking whether our regulations for school buses and transit buses apply to used school buses acquired to transport members of nonprofit organizations and churches. As I understand your letter, the Joint Interim Committee is especially interested in regulations pertaining to maintenance of used school buses and driver licensing. I regret the delay in responding to your letter.

As explained below, while NHTSA has a statutory provision relating to the repair and modification of used vehicles, our statutory provisions and standards generally apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. Our requirements do not apply to the use of motor vehicles and we have no regulations directly applying to vehicle maintenance and driver licensing for buses other than school buses. However, we have issued recommendations for state pupil transportation programs that include guidelines for school bus maintenance and driver qualifications. I have enclosed a copy of those for your information.

For purposes of this discussion, it is helpful to distinguish between two separate sets of regulations we issued for buses. The first set consists of the motor vehicle safety standards we issued under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 and apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, manufacturers of new motor vehicles are required to certify that their new vehicles meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and sellers and lessors of new motor vehicles are required to sell or lease only complying vehicles.

Since NHTSA's standards do not apply to used motor vehicles--i.e., motor vehicles that have been purchased for the first time in good faith for purposes other than resale--or to the use of motor vehicles, sales transactions involving used school buses are not covered by Vehicle Safety Act requirements. Thus, the used school buses you asked about are not required by Federal law to comply with Federal motor vehicle safety standards when they are sold to subsequent purchasers.

While the sale or use of used motor vehicles is not directly regulated by NHTSA, modifications of used motor vehicles are subject to Vehicle Safety Act limitations. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act provides, in part: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . ." Thus, the repair or modification of used buses is subject to Federal regulation if commercial businesses are involved. Such persons are prohibited from modifying used vehicles in such a way that would negatively affect the safety provided by the Federally required safety features.

The second set of regulations applying to buses and school buses was issued by NHTSA under the Highway Safety Act of 1966. The Highway Safety Act authorizes NHTSA to make grants to the States. Each State administers its grants according to a highway safety program which is reviewed and approved by NHTSA each year.

Regulations implementing the Highway Safety Act include a number of "program standards" issued for states to adopt in their highway safety programs. These standards, which are more in the nature of guidelines, are recommendations for ideal or model safety programs. I have enclosed a copy of Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, because it suggests requirements for school bus maintenance and driver qualifications which you might find helpful. Also, Standard No. 17 recommends that States not allow school buses that have been converted to be used for purposes other than transporting school students to be signed, painted, and equipped as school buses. A review of state law would determine which of the standard's recommendations have been adopted by Arkansas as part of its highway safety program.

In addition, the National Standards Division of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety will be able to provide you with information on regulations for the use of interstate motor carriers and driver licensing. You can contact them at 202-366-2981 or in Room 3404 at the address given above.

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

ENCLOSURES

Sincerely,

ID: nht68-3.6

DATE: 06/07/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; William Haddon, Jr., M.D.; NHTSA

TO: Toyota Motor Company, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of April 25, 1968, concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Numbers 111, 291, and 206. I hope these interpretations will answer your questions:

Standard No. 111:

Question 1. Your interpretation is not entirely correct. Your Figure 1 shows only six directions the 90-pound force can be applied; whereas, the force may be applied from any intervening location from within the solid wedge in the 180 degrees forward are inserted within the six lines you show in your Figure 1. S3.1.2.2 requires that the mirror is to be subjected to this test force. This may be applied to the center of the mirror or to any other location on the mirror surface.

Question 2. The test force may be applied as shown in your Figures 2(a), (b), and (c) but not as shown in Figure 3. As stated above, the test force must be applied to the mirror itself, not to the mirror support.

Question 3. As stated above, the 90-pound force may be applied as shown in your Figure 2(c) since it would not be possible, in this case, to obtain the maximum 45 degrees angle due to design of the mirror system.

Standard No. 201:

Since S3.4.2(b) of Standard No. 201 does not specifically state the thickness of energy-absorbing material required to cover the folding armrest, the armrest shown in your sketch on page 5 appears to be permissible. It does seem advisable, however, in future designs to either provide a greater thickness of energy-absorbing material or increases the potential area of contact with the underlying steel support by providing a wider flange and turning the edge inward.

Standard No. 206:

The inertia lond requirements of S3.3.3 refer to S3.3 - Door Latches only, and do not include the lock. Door lock requirements are specified separately in S3.1. Therefore, the door latch system requirements must be met without a lock engaged.

April 25, 1968

Dr. William Haddon, Jr., Director

National Highway Safety Bureau

We have questions on interpretation of Standards No. 111, No. 201, and No.

206.

Your kind cooperation would be very much appreciated if you answer the following questions.

Standard No. 111 S3.1.2.2

Question 1.

S3.1.2.2 specifies that " when the mirror is subjected to a force of 90 pounds in a forward or sideward direction in any plane 45 degrees above or below the horizontal". We interpret that direction of a force which should be applied to the mirror means any one of the six directions shown in Fig. 1, and that the force should be applied to a universal joint of the mirror or to a center of the mirror. Is this interpretation right?

Question 2.

As actual procedures of applying a force we use methods shown in Fig. 2 and 3, whether we use Fig. 2 method or Fig. 3 method depends on vehicle models. We think Fig. 2 method simulates actual application of a force better than Fig. 3 method, although direction of a force applied to the mirror by a head form will be different from 45 degrees (less than 45 degrees) when a head form approaches the mirror in Fig. 2 (a). If we use Fig. 3 method, we can always apply 45 degree force. Are those Fig. 2 and 3 methods permissible?

Question 3.

In applying a force using a head form, in some cases, it is impossible to apply 45 degree force due to shape of the mirror and mirror support. In this case, is it permissible to apply a force of as big as possible but less than 45 degree direction as shown in Fig. 2 (c)?

Standard No. 201 S3.4.2 (b)

We need clarification of "covered with energy absorbing material." In Fig. 5 and 6 we show a structure of folding armrest of Toyota Crown model. In Fig. 4, if force F is applied to the armrest as shown, fixtures of the armrest as shown A is comparatively easily deformed. However, a portion encircled in Fig. 5 BB crossection has only 5 mm thick cover of urethane foam rubber. Is this structure permissible?

Standard No. 206 S3.5.3

Is it permissible to lock the door latch system before we apply an inertia force of 30g to the door latch system?

Thank-you,

Toyotaro Yamada Manager

Fig. 1 (Graphics omitted)

Fig 2(a) Downward applied Force (Graphics omitted) Fig 2(b) Upward applied Force (Graphics omitted)

Fig 2(c) Downward applied Force. (Graphics omitted)

Fig 3 (Graphics omitted)

Fig 5 Armrest Installation (Graphics omitted)

Fig 6 Armrest Structure (Graphics omitted)

crossection CC. (Graphics omitted)

crossection AA (Graphics omitted)

crossection BB (Graphics omitted)

ID: 1984-2.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/13/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Linda Morrow

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Linda Morrow 2908 Eastway Drive Statesville, NC 28677

Dear Ms. Morrow:

This responds to your letter inquiring about the Federal safety standards that would apply to a product you are planning to sell. You stated that the product is a sheet of 1/8 inch tinted acrylic that is held on a side window of a vehicle by four suction cups. The purpose of the sheet is to shield vehicle occupants from the sun. The following discussion explains the applicability of our safety standards to your sun screen.

Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392(a), we have promulgated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, 49 CFR 571.205, Glazing Materia1s, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).

No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and other sunscreen devices, such as those described in your letter, in new vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance requirements of the Standard.

After a vehicle is sold to the consumer, he may alter his vehicle as he pleases, so long as he adheres to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may install the devices regardless of whether the installation adversely affects the light transmittance. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from applying sun screens on their vehicles.

If a dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor installs the sun screen device for the owner of the vehicle, then a violation of S108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act may result. That section provides that none of those persons may knowingly render 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 motor vehicle safety standard. Violation of the "render inoperative" provision can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.

If you need further information, the agency will be glad to provide it.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: nht79-1.26

DATE: 02/01/79

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

TO: Truck Equipment & Body Distributors Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

February 1, 1979 NOA-30

Mr. Richard J. Toner Director, Engineering Services Truck Equipment & Body Distributors Association 25900 Greenfield Road Oak Park, Michigan 48237

Dear Mr Toner:

This responds to your December 7, 1978, letter asking whether the weight of stake sides which are readily removable from a flat bed body would be included in the determination of a vehicle's unloaded vehicle weight.

As you know the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has defined "unloaded vehicle weight" in a manner that does not include the vehicle weight of accessories that are normally removed when they are not in use. This is the test that manufacturers should use when determining whether the weight of any piece of equipment or accessory is to be included within the unloaded vehicle weight determination.

In your letter you indicate that the stake sides for flat bed bodies are readily removable. Readily removable is not the correct test to apply to these devices in determining whether their weight must be included within the vehicle's unloaded vehicle weight. A manufacturer must determine whether the stakes are likely to be removed when not in use. If the answer to this question is yes, then the weight of stake sides would not be included in the unloaded vehicle weight. Otherwise, the weight of those accessories must be included.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

Truck Equipment & Body D/A Distributors Association

December 7, 1978

Mr. Joseph Levin Chief Council NHTSA 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Levin:

Compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Standards requires that the weight of permanently attached truck equipment be included in the vehicle weight. A question has arisen concerning the weight calculations on a truck equipped with a flat bed body and stake sides. Stake sides are a grid of horizontal wooden slats and vertical stakes which slide into pockets along the edges of the body.

Because the stakes are readily removable and are not bolted or clamped to the truck body in any manner, we do not consider the stake side assemblies to be part of the truck weight. Your opinion of this interpretation would be greatly appreciated.

Thanking you for your assistance and consideration, I remain,

Yours truly,

Richard J. Toner Director, Engineering Services

RJT:dg

ID: RVIA-MonacoCoach.ekmy

Lawrence F. Henneberger, Esq.
Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn, PLLC
1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036-5339

Dear Mr. Henneberger:

This is in response to your August 26, 2003 letter on behalf of the Recreational Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA) and Monaco Coach Company (Monaco), addressed to Mr. Kenneth N. Weinstein of this agency, in which you raised issues dealing with the submission of field reports under the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations Early Warning Reporting (EWR) regulations. As you are aware, these issues were previously discussed during an August 5, 2003 meeting between NHTSA officials and representatives of RVIA and Monaco.

You asked whether Pre-Delivery Inspection (PDI) forms, Dealer Acceptance forms (DAF), and any other pre-retail sale documents "related to recreational vehicles which are still in the direct control of the manufacturer or dealer" fall under the definition of "field reports" and therefore subject to the requirements of the EWR regulations. In your letter, you explained that recreational vehicle manufacturers, prior to retail sale of a recreational vehicle, typically require dealers to complete and provide back to the manufacturer what are known in the industry as PDIs, DAFs and similar materials. You further clarified that these "form documents . . . are essentially checklists for dealer completion which are intended to detect and correct, under warranty, any product deficiencies prior to retail sale of a recreational vehicle."

As we explained in the preamble to the EWR Final Rule, the term "field report" was not intended to cover every dealer-to-manufacturer communication. See 67 Fed. Reg. 45,855 (July 10, 2002). In response to requests to clarify the Final Rule, we amended the definition of "field report" in an April 15, 2003 Final Rule to exclude vehicles that are still within the control of the manufacturer. As amended, a "field report" is defined as "[a] communication in writing, including communications in electronic form . . . with respect to a vehicle or equipment that has been transported beyond the direct control of the manufacturer . . . regarding the failure, malfunction, lack of durability, or other performance problem of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment, or any part thereof, produced for sale by that manufacturer, regardless of whether verified or assessed to be lacking in merit . . ." 49 C.F.R.  579.4(c), 68 Fed. Reg. 18,136 at 18,142 (April 15, 2003).

Based upon your description of the documents identified in your letter, we confirm your understanding that those documents do not fall within the ambit of the EWR regulatory requirements. While vehicles in the possession of dealers are considered to be "beyond the direct control of the manufacturer" for recall purposes, NHTSA does not consider documents prepared by dealers that address particular vehicle prior to their first retail sale to be field reports for purposes of the EWR regulations. We also note that deficiencies would be corrected under warranty and therefore reported to NHTSA under the EWR provision pertaining to warranty claims.

Should you have any further questions, please contact Andrew J. DiMarsico of my staff at (202) 366-5263.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:579
d.10/22/03

ID: RVIA-MonacoCoach_new.ekmy

Lawrence F. Henneberger, Esq.
Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn, PLLC
1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036-5339

Dear Mr. Henneberger:

This is in response to your August 26, 2003 letter on behalf of the Recreational Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA) and Monaco Coach Company (Monaco), addressed to Mr. Kenneth N. Weinstein of this agency, in which you raised issues dealing with the submission of field reports under the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations Early Warning Reporting (EWR) regulations. As you are aware, these issues were previously discussed during an August 5, 2003 meeting between NHTSA officials and representatives of RVIA and Monaco.

You asked whether Pre-Delivery Inspection (PDI) forms, Dealer Acceptance forms (DAF), and any other pre-retail sale documents "related to recreational vehicles which are still in the direct control of the manufacturer or dealer" fall under the definition of "field reports" and therefore subject to the requirements of the EWR regulations. In your letter, you explained that recreational vehicle manufacturers, prior to retail sale of a recreational vehicle, typically require dealers to complete and provide back to the manufacturer what are known in the industry as PDIs, DAFs and similar materials. You further clarified that these "form documents . . . are essentially checklists for dealer completion which are intended to detect and correct, under warranty, any product deficiencies prior to retail sale of a recreational vehicle."

As we explained in the preamble to the EWR Final Rule, the term "field report" was not intended to cover every dealer-to-manufacturer communication. See 67 Fed. Reg. 45,855 (July 10, 2002). In response to requests to clarify the Final Rule, we amended the definition of "field report" in an April 15, 2003 Final Rule to exclude vehicles that are still within the control of the manufacturer. As amended, a "field report" is defined as "[a] communication in writing, including communications in electronic form . . . with respect to a vehicle or equipment that has been transported beyond the direct control of the manufacturer . . . regarding the failure, malfunction, lack of durability, or other performance problem of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle

equipment, or any part thereof, produced for sale by that manufacturer, regardless of whether verified or assessed to be lacking in merit . . ." 49 C.F.R.  579.4(c), 68 Fed. Reg. 18,136 at 18,142 (April 15, 2003).

Based upon your description of the documents identified in your letter, we confirm your understanding that those documents do not fall within the ambit of the EWR regulatory requirements. While vehicles in the possession of dealers are considered to be "beyond the direct control of the manufacturer" for recall purposes, NHTSA does not consider documents prepared by dealers that address particular vehicle prior to their first retail sale to be field reports for purposes of the EWR regulations. We also note that deficiencies would be corrected under warranty and therefore reported to NHTSA under the EWR provision pertaining to warranty claims.

Should you have any further questions, please contact Andrew J. DiMarsico of my staff at (202) 366-5263.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman

Chief Counsel
ref:579
d.10/22/03

ID: 86-5.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/02/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood for Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Andrew A Kroll

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Andrew A. Kroll 1401 East Girard, 1270 Englewood, Colorado 80110

Dear Mr. Kroll:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires Passenger Cars (49 CFR S571.109). Specifically you asked whether that standard is applicable to foam-filled passenger car tires that do not have any air in the inner tire cavity. Standard No. 109 does not apply to foam-filled passenger car tires.

Section S2 of Standard No. 109 specifies that "this standard applies to new pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars manufactured after 1948." In section S3 of the standard, the term "pneumatic tire" is defined as "a mechanical device made of rubber, chemicals, fabric and steel or other materials, which, when mounted on an automotive wheel, provides the traction and contains the gas or fluid that sustains the load" (emphasis added). Thus the relevant question is whether the foam filling the tires in question is considered a "gas or fluid". In a February 14, 1975 letter to Mr. J.F. Hutchinson, NHTSA stated that foam-filled tires "should not be considered pneumatic tires." This conclusion means that foam-filled tires for use on passenger cars are not subject to the requirements of Standard No. 109.

One result of this determination is that foam-filled tires can not be installed as original equipment on any new passenger car Standard No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims (49 CFR S571.110) sets forth requirements for new passenger cars. Section S4.1 of Standard No. 110 reads as follows: "Passenger cars shall be equipped with tires that meet the requirements of S571.109." Since foam-filled tires are not subject to Standard No. 109, they do not meet its requirements. Thus, it would be a violation of Standard No. 110 for any new passenger car to be equipped with foam-filled tires as original equipment.

You should also recognize that, even though foam-filled tires are not subject to Standard No. 109, they are still "items of motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(4)). Among other things, this means that, if there is a determination that the tires contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety, the manufacturer of the foam-filled tires is required to notify purchasers and dealers of the defect and remedy the defect without charge to the purchasers, if the tire was purchased less than 3 calendar years before the determination of defect was made.

If you have any further questions on this subject or need more information, please contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Andrew A. Kroll 1401 East Girard, #270 Englewood, Colorado 80110 (303) 761-9227

23 April 1986

Ms. Erika Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Chief Counsel Jones,

I am requesting an interpretation of the "Code of Federal Regulation" (No. 49) Part 571, Standard 109. Presently, the standard states that a specified air pressure must be in an automotive or truck tire for on road usage. What then is the legal status of foam filled tires without any air in the inner tire cavity. These tires are in use on heavy industrial machinery, and would have security applications for automobiles.

I would very much appreciate an interpretation of this standard on how it pertains to foam filled or solid tires for on road usage.

Thank you very much for your time. I hope to hear from you soon.

Sincerely,

Andrew A. Kroll

ID: nht88-1.64

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/07/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Robert L. Bernard

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Robert L. Bernard Attorney at Law 12342 Wrenthrope Drive Houston, TX 77031

Dear Mr. Bernard:

This letter responds to your inquiry of August 21, 1987, where you asked for this agency's opinion on whether Federal motor vehicle safety standard 115 (49 CFR S571.115) requires a manufacturer's chrome script name on the trunk of vehicles it manufacture s. It does not.

Standard 115, Vehicle Identification Number- Basic Requirements, directs a vehicle manufacturer to place a discrete vehicle identification number (VIN) on each vehicle it manufactures. Under paragraph S4.5, the VIN for any motor vehicle must appear indel ibly on a Dart of the vehicle other than the glazing, that is not designed to be removed except for repair. Paragraph S4.6 states that the VIN for passenger cars must appear inside the passenger compartment. Title 49 CFR Part 565, VIN-Content Requirement s, states that among other things, the VIN's first three characters must identify the vehicle manufacturer. However, neither Standard 115 or 565 require a manufacturer's name plate to appear on the vehicle.

I hope you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief of Counsel

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel N.H.T.S.A. 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Re: FMVSS-115

I have purchased a AC Mark IV motor vehicle manufactured by Autokraft in England which complies with all D.O.T. and E.P.A. rules and regulations and is imported and sold through Ford Motor Company franchised dealers with Ford warranty.

Enclosed please find a copy from the company brochure.

I have requested the deletion of the chrome script name "Autokraft" from the trunk from the manufacturer.

I request your opinion that the above standard and regulation does not require the chrome script name "Autokraft" on the trunk because there is the name and data plate affixed to the body in the engine compartment.

I have discussed this matter with Joan Tilghman and she requested that I write to you.

Please advise.

Very truly yours,

Robert L. Bernard

RLB/kmr/ed

cc: Joan Tilghman

ID: 19951

Ms. Sharon Elsenbeck
Director of Support Services
Three Springs of North Carolina
P.O. Box 1370
Pittsboro, NC 27312

Dear Ms. Elsenbeck:

This responds to your April 28, 1999, letter that asks whether your residential treatment facility for "adolescents with emotional and behavioral problems" must transport its students by buses that meet the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) school bus safety standards. You state that your residents attend an on-campus, non-public, school.

By way of background, NHTSA is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles. Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112 requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable standards. Accordingly, persons selling or leasing a new "school bus" must sell or lease a vehicle that meets the safety standards applicable to school buses. Our statute defines a "schoolbus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying a driver and more than 10 passengers and which, NHTSA decides, is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events. 49 U.S.C. 30125. By regulation, the capacity threshold for school buses corresponds to that of buses -- vehicles designed for carrying more than ten (10) persons. For example, a 15-person van that is likely to be used significantly to transport students is a "school bus."

Our statute thus regulates primarily manufacturers and sellers of new school buses. Any person selling a new school bus must sell a vehicle that is certified as meeting our school bus standards. Conventional buses (including 15-person vans) are not certified as doing so, and thus cannot be sold, as new vehicles, under circumstances where they are likely to be used to carry students on a regular basis.

You did not describe the program of Three Springs, so we are unable to determine whether your facility is a "school" under our statute. For your information, I am enclosing an April 8, 1998, letter to Mr. Gary Hammontree, director of a residential treatment program called Starr Commonwealth. The main purpose of Starr Commonwealth was to provide psychological and therapeutic counseling to youths placed in the program by the juvenile justice system. In our letter to Mr. Hammontree, we determined that Starr Commonwealth provided services that are distinct from the academic instruction associated with a "school," and that Starr Commonwealth was therefore not a school. Accordingly, we concluded that persons selling a new bus to the facility to transport the youths to counseling-related activities, such as service projects in the community, are not required to sell a "school bus." On the other hand, Starr Commonwealth also transported some students to off-campus public schools and events related to the schools. We therefore also determined that new buses sold to regularly transport students to those schools or to school-related events are "school buses" and would have to meet Federal school bus standards.

As to whether you must use school buses, that question is answered by State law. Because our regulations apply only to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, we do not prohibit facilities from using non-school buses to transport their pupils.  Matters relating to motor vehicle use are determined by state law, so you should check North Carolina law to see what State requirements apply to your vehicles. For information on North Carolina's requirements, you can contact North Carolina's State Director of Pupil Transportation:

Mr. Derek Graham, Section Chief
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction
301 N. Wilmington St.
Raleigh, NC 27601
Telephone: (919) 715-1950

In closing, we wish to emphasize that school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country, and that we therefore strongly recommend that all buses that are used to transport school children be certified as meeting NHTSA's school bus safety standards. Further, using buses that do not meet NHTSA's school bus standards to transport students could result in increased liability in the event of a crash. Since such liability would be determined by State law, you may wish to consult with your attorney and insurance carrier for advice on this issue.

I hope this information is helpful. For more information about the safety features of a school bus, I am enclosing NHTSA's publication: "School Bus Safety: Safe Passage for America's Children." If you have any further questions please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:VSA#571.3