ID: nht90-2.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/08/90

FROM: JACK RADEMACHER -- CHIEF ENGINEER, POLAR TANK TRAILER, INC.

TO: STEPHEN P. WOOD--NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 8-22-90 TO J. RADEMACHER FROM P. J. RICE; (A36; STD. 108)

TEXT:

Recently you released an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 which stated that rear turn, stop and tail lamps mounted 27 inches from the rear edge of the vehicle are not mounted "on the rear." In this interpretation, it was al so obvious that the 45 degree visibility requirements were not met.

It has long been the practice of the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA) and its members to interpret standard No. 108 as meaning that if the 45 degree visibility requirements of these lights were met "on the rear" of the trailer both inboard and outboard, the manufacturer met the intent of the standard. The liquid bulk transport industry is especially affected by your interpretation. Over the years thousands of tank transports have been built with rear lights mounted as far as 36 inches fo rward from the rear of the bumper. These tankers still maintain the 45 degree visibility requirements.

The following are some of the reasons for this type of high and set back type of lighting:

1.) Eliminating clutter in an area where hazardous materials are being dispensed. 2.) Better visibility because of high mounting. 3.) Protection of lens from chemical vapors and/or drips from hose tubes. 4.) Accident damage protection. 5.) Protection of lens from road dirt.

We (especially the cargo tank transport industry), therefore, request reconsideration of your interpretation allowing set back rear lights if 45 degree visibility requirements are met.

If there are any questions, please feel free to contact me at the above listed number.

ID: nht90-2.43

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: May 10, 1990

FROM: Stephen P. Wood -- Acting Chief Counsel., NHTSA

TO: Phil Gramm -- U.S. Senator

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 0-0-0 To John Cerisano and From Phil Gramm; Also attached to letter dated 2-12-90 To Phil Gramm and From Johannah Bonewald; Also attached to letter dated January 29, 1990 To All Ford Rent-A-Car System Members and From W .A. Jacques

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter to the Department of Transportation on behalf of your constituent, Johannah Bonewald of Voskamp Motors in Hallettsville, Texas. Ms. Bonewald enclosed a bulletin from the Ford Rent-A-Car System to all System members setting out F ord's policy concerning the rental of Ford vans with more than 10 designated seating positions. Ms. Bonewald questions the basis under Federal law for Ford's policy with regard to using these vans to transport students, and asked for additional informati on about the Federal law in this area. I am pleased to have this chance to provide you with the following information.

Ford's policy described in the bulletin is that dealers should not rent vans with more than 10 seating positions to customers, if the dealer knows or has reason to know that the vehicle will be used to transport students. The bulletin also recommends tha t dealers renting these vans should obtain a signed statement from the customer to the effect that the vehicle is not being used to carry students to and from school or related events. While Ford's policy is consistent with Federal requirements and this agency's safety recommendations, rental companies are not actually required by Federal law to take the actions recommended by Ford.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equi pment. Several of our standards set forth requirements for new "school buses," which are defined as vehicles designed for carrying more than 10 persons that are sold, or introduced into interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events., Thus, it is the vehicle's anticipated use, determined at the time of the new vehicle's first sale, that indicates whether it is a "school bus" for the purposes of the safety standards.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the safety Act specifies that no person shall "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States"

2

any motor vehicle manufactured on or after the date any applicable safety

standard takes effect unless the vehicle conforms with all such standards. Thus, every person that manufactures a bus that it knows will have the purpose of carrying students must certify that it complies with all school bus safety standards. Similarly, if a dealer sells or offers to sell to a school district or school bus contract operator a bus that will be used as a school bus, the Safety Act makes the dealer responsible for ensuring that the vehicle it sells is certified as complying with all applic able school bus standards.

The agency has previously stated, in the enclosed December 31, 1975 Federal Register notice that accompanied the adoption of the regulatory definition of "school bus," that if a seller has reason to believe that a bus will be used for student transportat ion, the seller can clarify the intentions of the purchaser by requesting a written statement of purpose from the purchaser. If that statment indicates that the vehicle will be used for student transportation, the seller can only provide a certified scho ol bus.

Pursuant to section 108 (b) (1) of the Safety Act, however, the requirement that a vehicle comply with all applicable safety standards does not apply after the first purchase of the vehicle for purposes other than resale. In a typical rental situation, t he person offering the vehicle for rent has already purchased the vehicle for a purpose other than resale, i.e., in order to offer the vehicle to the public for rent. Thus, a dealer wishing to offer vehicles for rent for the purposes of carrying students is not required by the Vehicle Safety Act to offer vehicles that fully comply with all safety standards applicable to school buses. Further, once a vehicle has been sold and delivered to the person who plans to rent the vehicle to the public, the vehicl e is no longer considered to be new and therefore is not required to remain in compliance with all applicable safety standards.

Having said this, I would like to emphasize some additional points. First, a manufacturer, distributor, or dealer that sells a new vehicle to a rental company that the seller knows or has reason to know intends to rent it to customers for the purpose of carrying students to or from school or related events is required by Federal law to sell that rental company only a vehicle certified as complying with the school bus standards. In Ms. Bonewald's letter to you, she indicates that the schools in the area are "probably the biggest customer" Voskamp Motors has for the rental of its 15-passenger vans. Any person that knows or has reason to know of this fact must either:

a. sell Voskamp Motors only certified school buses for use in Voskamp's rental fleet, or b. obtain assurance from Voskamp Motors that the vans it purchases that are not so certified will not be rented to customers that will use them for student transportation. Second, although NHTSA does not have authority to regulate the use of vehicles as school buses, the State of Texas does have such authority, and has exercised that authority. Your constituent may wish to contact

3

the State government to learn more about any State requirements applicable to

vehicles used as school buses.

Third, we strongly endorse the use of certified school buses as the vehicles rented for the purposes of transporting school children, because the certified school bus has been shown to be the safest way to transport students. Based on these safety consid erations, NHTSA endorses Ford's recommendation that its dealers rent only certified school buses for student transportation purposes.

I hope this information is helpful in responding to your constituent. I have also forwarded a copy of this correspondence to the Ford Rent-A-Car System. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions or need some additional inform ation.

ID: nht90-2.44

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: May 11, 1990

FROM: Stephen R. Darling -- C.E.T., Presvac Systems (Burlington) Limited

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: Re 49CRF575 - "Vehicle Owners Manual"

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-31-90 from S.P. Wood to S. Nishibori (Part 575.6); Also attached to Federal Register, 49 CFR Part 575, (11-27-89 Edition), pages 48745-48749 (text omitted); Also attached to letter dated 10-1-90 from P.J. Rice to S.R. Darling (A36; Std. 567; Std. 568)

TEXT:

Upon reviewing the recent publication of "Trailer/Body Builder", I noticed the article concerning manufactures statement in owners manual for N.H.T.S.A. notification in case of vehicle defects, as covered in 49CFR575.

As a Liquid Cargo Vessel Trailer manufacturer, we acknowledge our obligations in complying with this regulation by September 1, 1990.

However, in our other area of manufacturing, namely fabricating and installing Liquid Cargo Tanks onto existing or modified truck chassis, we question our obligations.

Could you please advise us of our obligations, if any with regards to 49CFR575 and our truck mounted cargo vessels.

Thanking you in advance; we remain,

Yours very truly

ID: nht90-2.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/17/90

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: DAVID R. MARTIN -- TOMOKA CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: HANDWRITTEN LETTER DATED 01/01/90 (EST); FROM DAVID R. MARTIN TO NHTSA (OCC 4221)

TEXT: This responds to your letter to this agency's Public Affairs Office asking about the application of Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, to a van used by a correctional institution to transport inmates. Your letter has been referred t o me for reply. I regret the delay in responding.

As you may know, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA issued Standard No. 301 to reduce deaths and injuries resulting from fuel spillage in crashes. The standard applies to new vans manufactured on or after September 1, 1976, that have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less.

Under the Vehicle Safety Act, each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. Thus, if the vans in your letter were manufactured on or after Se ptember 1, 1976, the van manufacturer was required to certify their compliance with Standard No. 301. However, even if the vans did not comply with that standard, the Act does not place any responsibility for that noncompliance on the first purchasers a nd subsequent owners of the vans. Since some states do require that vehicles used for certain purposes comply with our standards, you may wish to address your question to appropriate State authorities in Tallahassee.

We regret we cannot provide the testing you seek. NHTSA obtains and tests new vehicles for compliance with FMVSS No. 301. However, since the standard applies only to new vehicles, NHTSA does not conduct compliance tests on vehicles that have already be en sold to a consumer. The agency also cannot test every new type or model of vehicle, since it would be impracticable to do so.

For your information, Safety Standard No. 217 specifies emergency exit requirements for vans designed to carry 11 or more persons. However, the standard excludes vans purchased for transporting prison inmates. This exclusion resulted from a determinati on that the standard's requirements were incompatible with the necessity that buses used for transporting inmates be able to confine their occupants in transit. I have enclosed a copy of Standard No. 217 for your information.

You also asked whether we require roll bars on vehicles used to transport 12, 13 or 14 passengers. The answer is no. However, NHTSA does have a standard for roof crush protection (Standard No. 216) which requires the roof over the front seating area of cars to meet certain strength requirements. NHTSA has proposed to extend the standard to light trucks and buses (GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less). I have enclosed a copy of that proposal for your information.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht90-2.46

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: May 17, 1990

FROM: Ron Boucher -- Energy Savings System

TO: Miss Carnes -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-27-90 to R. Boucher from P. J. Rice; (A35; VSA 102(4)); also attached to letter dated 5-29-90 to NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel from R. Boucher; (OCC 4837) TEXT:

Regarding our conversation this morning, you requested me to fax you this information about the item that I'm wanting to know and be sure that the product is OK to use for vehicle breakdowns and also for bicycling identification.

If you need more information, please call me.

Just want to be certain that I am in compliance with the laws of the land.

Miss Carnes, thanks again for your help in this matter.

ID: nht90-2.47

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: May 18, 1990

FROM: David W. Holscher -- General Sales Manager, Dreyer & Reinbold, Inc.

TO: Taylor Vinson -- Legal Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-31-90 from P.J. Rice to D. Holscher (Std. 108; VSA 108(a)(2); A36)

TEXT:

I am writing to you from Dreyer & Reinbold Infiniti in Indianapolis, IN. I am General Sales Manager here and one of our customers has requested a factory design rear spoiler on their new Infiniti. The rear spoiler contains a 3rd brake light which will i lluminate during brake application. This would be an addition to the existing rear window brake light. The rear window brake light is not removable because of damage to the interior of the car which would cost a large amount of money to repair.

I need something in writing in regard to standard 108 to allow me to understand that by installing this spoiler, I am not violating any federal NHTSA regulations. I had talked on the phone to one of your people and they suggested that I write you for fi nal verification of this fact.

Your help is greatly appreciated and you can contact me at this phone number 317-573-0222. Enclosed please find an addressed stamped envelope.

ID: nht90-2.48

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: May 19, 1990

FROM: Stephen P. Wood -- Acting Chief Counsel., NHTSA

TO: Keith D. Kroll -- Vice President, Engineering., Hehr International, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-22-90 To Stephen P. Wood and From Keith D. Kroll; (OCC 4481); Also attached to letter dated 1-26-90 To John G. Sims and From Stephen P. Wood

TEXT:

This is in response to your request for an interpretation of S5.5.1 and S5.5.2 of Standard No. 217; Bus Window Retention and Release (49 CFR S571.217). More specifically, I understand your request to refer to buses that are not school buses and that have a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds. For such buses, S5.5.1 of Standard No. 217 provides that: "... each emergency door shall have the designation 'Emergency Door' or 'Emergency Exit' ... followed by concise operating instructions d escribing each motion necessary to unlatch and open the exit,located within 6 inches of the release mechanism. S5.5.2 requires that emergency exit "markings" be visible to occupants in specified locations, under lighting and occupant visual acuity condit ions set forth in S5.5.2.

You suggested that S5.5.1 requires only the operating instructions, and not the emergency exit designation, to be located within 6 inches of the release mechanism. Similarly, you suggested that the legibility requirements applicable to emergency exit "ma rkings" per S5.5.2 refer only to the emergency exit designation, and not to the operating instructions for that emergency exit.

We disagree with your suggested interpretation. I have recently discussed NHTSA's official interpretation of these provisions in Standard No. 217 in a January 26, 1990 letter to Mr. John G. Sims. A copy of that letter is enclosed for your information.

Please contact David Greenburg of this office at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or would like some additional information concerning this subject.

ID: nht90-2.49

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: May 22, 1990

FROM: Bob Abernethy -- Idea's Inc.

TO: Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-7-90 from P.J. Rice to B. Abernethy (A36; Std. 108)

TEXT:

I realize that a change or deviation from Standard # 108 is like changing the Constitution. However, some technical data could aid in your decision. This may be obtained from the Electrical Testing Laboratory.

I have written a proposed variance in your Standard # 108 in my letter to you dated 3/21/90. However I am not accustomed to a committee response.

Enclosed "REGULATION AT ITS BEST" from Automotive Engineering magazine stating the benefits of high mounted stoplamps. Please think further by changing this to an analog response.

If you need further assistance or information, feel free to write; or call me at my new number.

Enclosure

Editorial "Regulation At It's Best" Regular readers of this page will recall that, on occasion, I have criticized the Federal government's regulation of various aspects of the automobile and the automotive industry. So I think it's only fair to pay a compliment to the regulators in Washin gton when they produce a regulation with a clearly outstanding cost-benefit ratio. I refer to the FMVSS No. 108 amendment which requires new passenger cars to be equipped with a center high-mounted stoplamp beginning on September 1, 1985.

At the first of this summer's crop of long-lead press previews, I made it a point to follow as many cars as possible which were equipped with this center stoplamp. Even in bright sunlight I found it remarkably effective in getting a driver's immediate a ttention, alerting him to the braking of the car in front. Although I didn't get a chance to try it at night, I imagine it's all the more effective then. Some of its effectiveness may be due to the fact that it's brand-new, I admit, but even after the driving public has become accustomed to it there should be a significant net gain.

SAE Paper 851240 by Digges, Nicholson, and Rouse, titled "The Technical Basis for the Center High Mounted Stoplamp," says that "The long run costs of the center stoplamp are estimated at about $4 per car. The property damage reduction for a complete fle et equipped with these lamps is estimated at $434 million per year. Comparison of the long run costs and

the property damage savings produces a net benefit of almost $400 million per year."

The paper goes on to say that "Field tests have shown that the center high mounted stoplamp is about fifty percent effective in reducing relevant accidents. Based upon analysis, NHTSA estimates that on the order of 900,000 accidents per year would be av oided, and 40,000 injuries would be reduced."

Is this an example of Federal regulation at its best? It think it is, and I tip my hat to the people at NHTSA who produced it.

Larry Givens Editor "Automotive Engineering" July 85 Volume 93, Number 7

ID: nht90-2.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 9, 1990

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: ROBERT A ROGERS -- DIRECTOR, ASE, EAS

TITLE: NONE

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter asking for confirmation that an interpretation of a notice of proposed rulemaking remains in effect with respect to the final rule based upon that proposal. I regret the delay in responding.

Specifically, you reference an interpretation dated September 12, 1988, that this office provided Koito Corporation, informing it that each of the two Vehicle Headlamp Aiming Device (VHAD) designs depicted "complies with the intent of S7.7.5.2" of Standa rd No. 108. The second design consisted of a detachable spirit level that would be inserted in the bulb socket for the purpose of aiming the headlamp. We informed Koito that under subsection (b)(7) photometric testing is provided for "the VHAD and head lamp assembly (if the headlamp is separable or intended to be used with the VHAD), and that this meant that the VHAD may be integral with the headlamp assembly or separate from it. However, we also cautioned that our comments were based upon the proposa l, and could change with the issuance of the final rule.

You have commented that the final rule was the same with respect to the pertinent VHAD wording. This is not entirely true. The final rule (paragraph S7.7.5.2(b)(vii)) omitted the parenthetical phrase "(if the headlamp is separable or intended to be use d ,with the VHAD). You also noted that paragraph S7.7.5.2(c)(1) of the final rule defines a headlamp assembly as "(the headlamp(s) and the integral or separate VHAD mechanism)". The intent of this language is to specify a VHAD that is a permanent part of the headlamp, and hence integral, or to have a separate VHAD that is part of the mounting mechanism. It was not meant as permitting a VHAD that could be physically separated from headlamp or the mounting mechanism. Thus, in our view and upon our fur ther consideration of the matter, a detachable VHAD does not meet the "intent" of the final rule.

This means that the spirit level design described in your letter, which is not integral to the headlamp or mounting mechanism, is not permissible. We shall provide Koito with a copy of this letter.

DATE: October 3, 1989

FROM: ROBERT A. ROGERS -- DIRECTOR, ASE

TO: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

COPYEE: AUGUST BURGETT; BARRY FELRICE The purpose of this letter is to request that the NHTSA affirm a previous FMVSS 108 interpretation that it has issued. The interpretation involves the applicablity of vehicle headlamp aiming device (VHAD) requirements and is relevant to a design which G eneral Motors is considering.

BACKGROUND

On December 29, 1987, NHTSA published an NPRM (Dicket 85-15, Notice 5) which prrposed extensive revisions to FMVSS 108, including a provision to allow a VHAD.

In a letter dated April 8, 1988, Koito Manufacturing Company asked the agency for confirmation that two different VHAD designs that it was contemplating would comply with the proposed FMVSS 108 revisions. The second design described in the Koito lett er consists of a detachable spirit level that would be inserted in the bulb socket for the purpose of aiming the headlamp. Once the headlamp is aimed, the spirit level would be removed and the headlamp bulb would be reinstalled for normal operation. Th e key aspect of this design is that the VHAD is separate from, rather than integral to, the headlamp.

In responding to Koito on September 12, 1988, the agency stated:

"With respect to your two designs, you appear to have understood that the agency's intent in the proposal was to provide broad parameters for VHADs to afford manufacturers design freedom in meeting the specifications. Under S7.7.5.2 it is the headlam p system that 'includes' a VHAD, rather than 'incorporates' it. Under subsection (b)(7) photometric testing is provided for 'The VHAD and headlamp assembly (if the headlamp is separable or intended to be used with the VHAD)...' This means that the VHAD may be integral with the headlamp assembly, or separate from it (though presumably provided with the vehicle as part of its original equipment), as fits the manufacturer's design. Each of your designs complies with the intent of S7.7.5.2; however, I must emphasize that this (Notice 5) is only a proposal, and the form of a final requirement, if any, has not been determined.

On May 9, 1989, the agency issued a Final Rule (docket 85-15, Notice 8) patterned after the Notice 5 NPRM. With respect to the pertinent VHAD wording, the Final Rule was the same as the NPRM, and the preamble left unchanged the position stated above.

GENERAL MOTORE DESIGN:

The Notice 5 NPRM and Notice 8 Final Rule were partially the result of GM's petitions to permit the use of our new 55 X 135 millimeter integral beam headlamp. This new headlamp (scheduled for introduction in the 1991 model year) has been reviewed on several occasions with agency personnel. During those reviews, we indicated that the 55 X 135 would employ a spirit level VHAD that is integral to the headlamp mounting assembly.

The integral VHAD design entails four spirit levels on each vehicle - one for each headlamp. However, we have recently developed an alternative spirit level VHAD for the 55 X 135 which is not integral to the headlamp assembly. By adopting the non-in tregral VHAD, we are able to provide a single spirit level with each vehicle. This results in a significant cost saving opportunity. The proposed non-intregral VHAD would be furnished with each vehicle equipped with 55 X 135 integral beam headlamps. Th e attached sketch illustrates the VHAD we are comtemplating. To vertically aim the headlamp, the three legs of the VHAD adaptor would be held to the headlamp aiming ring, as shown in the sketch. The vertical adjusting screw on the headlamp would then b e turned to obtain a zero reading of the spirit level, just as with the earlier integral VHAD design.

As mentioned, a move to this VHAD design represents a significant cost saving opportunity for purchasers of the 55 X 135 headlamp. The separate VHAD also serves equally well as the integral VHAD in meeting the needs of motor vehicle safety.

We have carefully reviewed the wording of S7.7 of FMVSS 108, and we believe it supports the use of the separate VHAD being considered for the 55 X 135. In particular, S7.7.5.2(c)(1) explicitly comprehends a VHAD design of the type GM is developing.

Like Koito, GM understands "...that the agency's intent in the proposal was to provide broad parameters for VHADs to afford manufacturers design freedom in meeting the specifications". We also believe that this intent is carried forward to the Final Rul e, since the pertinent wording was unchanged.

However, given that the agency emphasized that its September 12, 1988, comments were based on an NPRM only, we seek confirmation that the agency's interpretation of the actual standard is the same as the September 12 interpretation of the NRPM.

ID: nht90-2.50

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: May 25, 1990

FROM: Stephen P. Wood -- Acting Chief Counsel., NHTSA

TO: Lloyd Bentsen -- U.S. Senator

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-8-90 To Jerry Ralph Curry and From Lloyd Bentsen; Also attached to letter dated 2-12-90 To Lloyd Bentsen and From Johannah Bonewald; Also attached to letter dated 1-29-90 To All Ford Rent- A-Car System Members and Fro m W.A. Jacques

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter to Administrator Curry on behalf of your constituent, Johannah Bonewald of Voskamp Motors in Hallettsville, Texas. The Administrator has asked me to reply. Ms. Bonewald enclosed a bulletin from the Ford Rent-A-Car System to all System members setting out Ford's policy concerning the rental of Ford vans with more than 10 designated seating positions. Ms. Bonewald questions the basis under Federal law for Ford's policy with regard to using these vans to transport students, and as ked for additional information about the Federal law in this area. I am pleased to have this chance to provide you with the following information.

Ford's policy described in the bulletin is that dealers should not rent vans with more than 10 seating positions to customers, if the dealer knows or has reason to know that tbe vehicle will be used to transport students. The bulletin also recommends tba t dealers renting these vans should obtain a signed statement from tbe customer to the effect that the vehicle is not being used to carry students to and from school or related events. While Ford's policy is consistent with Federal requirements and this agency's safety recommendations, rental companies are not actually required by Federal law to take the actions recommended by Ford.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equi pment. Several of our standards set forth requirements for new "school buses," which are defined as vehicles designed for carrying more than 10 persons that are "sold, or introduced into interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events." Thus, it is the vehicle's anticipated use, determined at the time of the new vehicle's first sale, that indicates whether it is a "school bus" for the purposes of the safety standards.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act specifies that no person shall "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle manufactured on or aft er the date any applicable safety standard takes effect unless the vehicle conforms with all such standards. Thus, every person that manufactures a bus that it knows will have the purpose of carrying students must certify that it complies with all school bus safety standards. Similarly, if a dealer sells or offers to

sell to a school district or school bus contract operator a bus that will be used as a school bus, the Safety Act makes the dealer responsible for, ensuring tbat the vehicle it sells is certified as complying with all applicable scbool bus standards.

The agency has previously stated, in the enclosed December 31, 1975 Federal Register notice that accompanied the adoption of the regulatory definition of "school bus," that if a seller has reason to believe that a bus will be used for student transportat ion, the seller can clarify the intentions of the purchaser by requesting a written statement of purpose from the purchaser. If that statement indicates that the vehicle will be used for student transportation, the seller can only provide a certified sch ool bus.

Pursuant to section 108(b)(1) of the Safety Act, however, the requirement that a vehicle comply with all applicable safety standards does not apply after the first purchase of tbe vehicle for purposes other than resale. In a typical rental situation, the person offering the vehicle for rent has already purchased the vehicle for a purpose other than resale, i.e., in order to offer the vehicle to the public for rent. Thus, a dealer wishing to offer vehicles for rent for the purposes of carrying students i s not required by the Vehicle Safety Act to offer vehicles that fully comply with all safety standards applicable to school buses. Further, once a vehicle has been sold and delivered to the person wbo plans to rent the vehicle to the public, the vehicle is no longer considered to be new and therefore is not required to remain in compliance with all applicable safety standards.

Having said this, I would like to emphasize some additional points. First, a manufacturer, distributor, or dealer that sells a new vehicle to a rental company that the seller knows or has reason to know intends to rent it to customers for the purpose of carrying students to or from school or related events is required by Federal law to sell that rental company only a vehicle certified as complying with the school bus standards. In Ms. Bonewald's letter to you, she indicates that the schools in the area are "probably the biggest customer" Voskamp Motors has for the rental of its 15-passenger vans. Any person that knows or has reason to know of this fact must either:

a. sell Voskamp Motors only certified school buses for use in voskamp's rental fleet, or b. obtain assurance from Voskamp Motors that the vans it purchases that are not so certified will not be rented to customers that will use them for student transportation.

Second, although NHTSA does not have authority to regulate the use of vehicles as school buses, the State of Texas does have such authority, and has exercised that authority. Your constituent may wish to contact the State government to learn more about a ny State requirements applicable to vehicles used as school buses.

Third, we strongly endorse the use of certified school buses as the vehicles rented for the purposes of transporting school children, because the certified school bus has been shown to be the safest way to transport students. Based on these safety consid erations, NHTSA endorses Ford's

recommendation that its dealers rent only certified school buses for student transportation purposes.

I hope this information is helpful in responding to youCr constituent. I have also forwarded a copy of this correspondence to the Ford Rent-A-Car System. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions or need some additional infor mation.