ID: 86-5.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/30/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Toshio Maeda

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Toshio Maeda Executive Vice President & Chief Operating Officer Nissan Research & Development, Inc. P.O. Box 8650 Ann Arbor, MI 48104

Dear Mr. Maeda:

Thank you for your letter of July 30, 1986, concerning the safety belt contact force provision of the comfort and convenience requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. You explained that Nissan is concerned about the requirements of S10.6 contained in the final rule published on March 21, 1986. You noted that a sentence contained in the notice of proposed rulemaking was not included in the final rule and asked whether this sentence had been inadvertently omitted.

In addition, you asked the agency to clarify the effect of the omitted sentence on belt systems which have less than 12 inches of webbing stored in the retractor once the belt is placed around the test dummy. You explained that Nissan considers the purpose of the requirement in the omitted sentence to be elimination of belt drag before measuring the belt contact force. You explained that requiring a manufacturer to pull 12 inches of webbing from the retractor before the belt connect test would require redesign of Nissan's belt systems, even though those systems meet the safety belt adjustment requirements of the standard. You asked the agency to provide that a manufacturer can pull the maximum allowable length of the belt stored on the retractor, rather than 12 inches, prior to conducting the belt contact force test.

As explained in the enclosed Federal Register notice, the sentence contained in the notice of proposed rulemaking was inadvertently omitted from the final rule. NHTSA agrees that the purpose of the belt webbing pull requirement can be adequately net by pulling our the maximum allowable amount of the belt, when the belt has less than 12 inches of available additional webbing. Pulling the belt in this way will ensure that the belt retractor is working and webbing drag is reduced. Thus, the agency has modified the requirement to provide that prior to measuring the belt contact force the agency will pull out 12 inches of webbing or the maximum amount of webbing available when the maximum amount is less than 12 inches.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

JULY 30, 1986 Ref: W-187-H

Ms. Erika Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th St., S.W. Room 5219 Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

Re: 49 CFR Part 571.208 (Docket No. 74-14; Notice 43) REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION AND, IF NECESSARY, PETITION FOR RULEMAKING

On behalf of Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., of Tokyo, Japan, Nissan Research & Development, Inc, herewith requests the agency's interpretation of language in the above-reference provisions of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, "Occupant Crash Protection," Further, if NHTSA cannot agree that Nissan's understanding is an acceptable interpretation of the requirement, we subsequently request your treatment of this letter as a petition for rulemaking.

1) Section 10.7 of the final rule for Docket No. 74-14, Notice 43, gives the following directions for testing seat belt contact force:

"Pull the belt webbing three inches from the test dummy's chest and release until the webbing is within 1 inch of the test dummy's chest and measure the belt contact force."

This language differs from the language in S.10.6 in Notice 42, which at first gives directions to; "pull 12 inches of belt webbing from the retractor and then release it, allowing the belt webbing to return to the dummy's chest."

(Subsequent language is consistent in both Notice 42 and 43 versions.)

Nissan's question, therefore, is: was the omission of the Notice 42 language in Notice 43 intentional or not?

2) If the omission of that language from Notice 43 was unintentional, and the language is adopted as intended in Notice 42, Nissan's interpretation is that would be acceptable to pull out the maximum allowable length of belt webbing, in the event that 12 inches of belt webbing cannot be pulled out, before measuring belt contact force. Does NHTSA agree with and accept this interpretation?

Explanation of Nissan's Interpretation

According to the preamble of Docket 74-14, Notice 37, the purpose of the S10.6 provision is to eliminate the belt drag on the belt guide components before measuring the belt contact force, and not to measure the ability to pull 12 inches of webbing from the retractor, Nissan is not aware of any reasons to support additional requirements concerning belt adjustment beyond the requirements of MVSS 208 S7.1.

In Nissan's case, the explicit requirement that 12 inches of webbing must be pulled from the retractor would necessitate a complete redesign of some belt systems for our vehicles. We therefore believe that pulling the maximum allowable length of webbing should be allowable for cases where 12 inches cannot be pulled, We believe that such an interpretation is not inconsistent with the performance requirements of the standard.

As an aside, Nissan would also like to point out that for diagonal or 3-point automatic restraint systems which lack a belt guide, there is no need to pull out 12 inches of belt webbing length to eliminate belt guide drag.

3) As stated earlier, if the agency cannot agree that the rule's final language may be interpreted to allow the maximum allowable length of belt webbing to be pulled from the retractor, Nissan requests treatment of this request for interpretation as a Petition for Rulemaking to incorporate such language into S.10.7 of FMVSS 208.

In view of the extreme importance and urgency of NHTSA's response, we ask your utmost cooperation in treating this request expeditiously. Mr. Tomoyo Hayashi of my Washington, D.C. staff is available at (202) 466-5284 if you have further questions. Moreover, I would appreciate your mailing a copy of your response to Mr. Hayashi in Washington, to ensure our quick receipt of NHTSA's answer. His address is as follows: Nissan Research & Development, Inc. 1919 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Suite 707 Washington, D.C. 20006

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

NISSAN RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT, INC.

Toshio Maeda Executive Vice President & Chief Operating Officer

TM:TH:mab

ID: 86-5.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/31/86

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: DON PANZER -- SPRAY RIDER INC

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 07/28/86 FROM DON PANZER TO NHTSA, OCC 1115

TEXT: Dear Mr. Panzer:

This is in reply to your letter of July 28, 1986, describing a supplemental hazard warning system you have developed which is designed to be incorporated as part of the external rear-view mirror assembly. You have asked about its relationship to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 108 and 111.

The information you enclosed depicts the lamp mounted above the outside rear-view mirror in the same housing. According to your description it may face in the same direction as the mirror, or "exposed to the front, back, and side of the vehicle or in any combination of these directions." It will flash synchronously with the front and rear hazard warning lamps, and "can also perform as a directional signal."

Standard No. 108 deals only indirectly with lighting systems other than those which it requires. Supplemental lighting equipment and other motor vehicle equipment are permissible under Paragraph S4.1.3 as long as they do not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. We believe that a possibility of impairment of the turn signal system might exist if your lamp-mirror were to operate in this fashion, and only one such device were installed on a vehicle. This suggests that lamps providing a turn-signal function be packaged and sold in pairs and conversely that lamps sold singly not provide a turn-signal function. On the basis of the facts as you have presented them to us, we cannot say that impairment otherwise would exist, or that the device would not be acceptable as original equipment. However, because of the dual nature of the American legal system the fact that an accessory is not prohibited by Federal law does not mean that it is permissible under the laws of the individual States. We are not able to advise you as to these laws but you may wish to check with the Motor Vehicle Administrators of the States where you intend to sell your device.

2

As you surmised, there is also a relationship of Standard No. 111 to your device as an item of original equipment. Further, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act itself bears upon its permissibility as an aftermarket item. Standard No. 111 requires each passenger car to be equipped with an outside rear-view mirror on the driver's side; under paragraph S5.2.2 ". . . neither the mirror nor the mounting shall protrude farther than the widest part of the vehicle body except to the extent necessary to produce a field of view meeting or exceeding the requirements of S5.2.1." You have not provided us with the dimensions of this device and while the photograph you enclosed showing it mounted on a Vauxhall car is inconclusive, it at least suggests that you examine this design with S5.2.2 in mind. This prohibition does not extend to an exterior-mounted mirror on the passenger side. You should also be aware that the same restriction applies to driver-side mirrors on multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses other than schoolbuses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less that are equipped with mirrors that comply with the requirements of paragraph S5, an option permitted by paragraph S6.1(a) of the standard.

Although the safety standards do not apply once a vehicle is sold, the Traffic Safety Act prohibits persons other than a vehicle owner from "rendering inoperative in whole or in part" safety equipment installed on a vehicle to achieve compliance with the safety standards. The agency is concerned that a light incorporated with a rear view mirror could create glare to the driver, thus rendering the mirror partially "inoperative" within the meaning of the standard, even if the replacement mirror otherwise complies with Standard No. 111.

You should also be aware of the other performance and location requirements for rearview mirrors on passenger cars in Standard No. 111. The outside rearview mirror on the driver's side must be of unit magnification and must comply with field of view requirements, as well as the mounting requirements referred to above. Regarding the passenger's side, an outside rearview mirror is required only if the inside rearview mirror fails to meet the field of view requirements. This outside rearview mirror may be either plane or convex and must comply with the mounting and adjustability requirements in paragraph S5.3. If this outside rearview mirror is convex, it must meet the requirements for convex mirrors in paragraph S5.4.

I hope that this clarifies the relationship of the Federal standards to your device, and if there are any further questions I would be pleased to answer them.

Sincerely

ID: 86-5.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/06/86

FROM: JOHN H. HEINRICH -- DISTRICT DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY; J. MICHAEL ZEHNER -- CHIEF, FINES, PENALTIES & FORFEITURES DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY

TO: LARRY THUNDERBIRD AND MUSTANG

TITLE: DATE OF VIOLATION: DATE OF SEIZURE: OCTOBER 3, 1986 PORT OF ENTRY: LA/LB DISTRICT: LOS ANGELES

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 05/13/87; TO WILLIAM E DANNEMEYER FROM ERIKA Z JONES, REDBOOK A30 (2), STD 211; LETTER DATED 05/08/67 TO EARL W KINTNER FROM WILLIAM HADDON; LETTER DATED 05/10/67 TO HAROLD T. HALFPANNY FROM LOWELL K. BRIDWELL; LETTER DATED 04/10/87 TO WILLIAM E. DANNEMEYER FROM EDWARD J. BABBITT; LETTER DATED 03/30/87 TO ED BABBITT, FROM WILLIAM E DANNEMEYER;

TEXT: Gentlemen:

This is to officially notify you that the following merchandise has been seized by the U.S. Customs Service pursuant to the provisions of title 18, United States Code, section 545 and title 19, United States Code, section 1592(c)(5), because of a violation of title 19, United States Code, section 1592(a):

DESCRIPTION

Spinner Hubcaps

QUANTITY

1,000 each

The specific acts or omissions forming the basis for the violation, and the circumstances of entry or introduction, or attempted entry or introduction, of the merchandise into the commerce of the United States are as follows: An examination of entry #86-170313-5 invoiced as 1,000 pcs of "Hub Cap Spinners" revealed the prohibited merchandise of "Spinner Hubcaps." These spinner hubcaps are prohibited by The Department of Transportation's Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 49 CFR 571,211, because they incorporate the use of winged projections constituting a hazard to pedestrians and cyclists. Furthermore, the HS Form 7 included with the entry was checked in the box indicating that the merchandise"... conforms to all applicable safety standards..." which it does not.

Seizure of the above described merchandise is authorized to prevent the introduction of prohibited or restricted merchandise into the Customs territory of the United States.

Subject to certain exceptions described below, the seized merchandise will be released to the person from whom it was seized, or to another person who established a substantial interest in the merchandise to the satisfaction of the District Director of Customs, Los Angeles. To obtain release, the person must deposit security for payment of any claim for a monetary penalty in the form of payment of the specified amount or an irrevocable letter of credit for such amount in a form acceptable to the District Director. The amount of the security deposit is based upon the District Director's preliminary determination of the maximum penalty which may be assessed for the violation according to the degree of culpability believed to be attributable to the violator, as follows:

For violations believed due to negligence, the deposit will be 20 percent of the dutiable value of the merchandise.

The merchandise will be released to a person other than the person from whom it was seized only if the person so requesting release submits an agreement to hold the United States and the officers and employees harmless and a release from the registered owner and / or the person from whom the merchandise was seized. For further information, contact the District Director of Customs at the address stated below.

It has been determined that the merchandise described in this seizure notice will be released upon deposit of the penalty amount of $ 940.00, and all other seizure related charges. The prohibited spinner hubcaps must then be exported to its original country of origin.

Additional information may be obtained from the office of the District Director of Customs at the address and telephone number given below. Your request for release of the merchandise must be accompanied by payment of the amount of the security deposit indicated above or by an irrevocable letter of credit payable on demand to the United States Customs Service for that amount.

Request for release of merchandise or other inquiries should be addressed to District Director of Customs, 300 South Ferry Street, Room 1212, Terminal Island, California 90731 Attn: Fines, Penalties & Forfeitures, (213) 514-6019.

After investigation into the circumstances of the alleged violation as may be necessary, you will be informed of the District Director's determination concerning a claim for monetary penalty and further proceedings in this matter.

Sincerely,

ID: 86-5.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/12/86

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: JEROME J. ABT -- TRIM-LINE OF WEST WISCONSIN

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 09/25/85 FROM JEROME J. ABT TO TAYLOR VINSON -- NHTSA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Abt:

This is in reply to your letter of September 25, 1985, to Mr. Vinson of this office. As a seller of aftermarket "flush mount luggage racks" you are concerned about potential liability should a rear-end collision occur when luggage is carried and blocks the center high-mounted stop lamp (mandatory on all passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985).

Such an occurrence would not be a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act under which the high-mounted stop lamp standard was issued, as compliance would be judged only with the rack in place but not in use. Your question then cannot be answered under Federal law, but only under the laws of the individual State in which an accident occurs. I suggest that you consult your local counsel for advice.

Sincerely,

ID: 86-5.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/13/86

FROM: FRANCIS ARMSTRONG -- DIRECTOR OFFICE OF VEHICLE SAFETY COMPLIANCE ENFORCEMENT NHTSA

TO: PETER CAMERON

TITLE: NEF 32GSH

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/10/88 TO PETER CAMERON FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A32; LETTER DATED 06/01/88 TO ERIKA Z JONES FROM PETER CAMERON; OCC - 2120

TEXT: Dear Mr. Cameron:

This is in response to your recent request for information concerning legislation and regulations pertaining to the manufacture/importation of motor vehicles.

As a general rule, all motor vehicles must comply with the applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) in effect on the date of manufacture. Refer to the enclosed Form HS-189 for the general requirements of the FMVSS.

Section 114 (15 USC 1403) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (th Act) and Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 567, (49 CFR 567), require that the manufacturer permanently affix a tag or label to a motor vehicle certifying that it conforms to all applicable FMVSS.

If you determine in good faith that any vehicle manufactured by you does not conform with an applicable FMVSS or contains a safety-related defect, section 151 (15 USC 1411) of the Act requires that you furnish notification to the Secretary and to owners in accordance with section 153 (15 USC 1413) and to remedy without cost the failure to conform or defect in accordance with section 154 (15 USC 1414).

You should also note that under 49 CFR 566, you are required to submit certain idntifying information and a description of your product to the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Prior to offering a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment form importation into the United States, a foreign manufacturer is required to register an "Agent-for-Service" of process as set forth in 49 CFR 551 45 as well as furnishing the information required by 49 CFR 566.

Federal Regulations concerning anti-pollution emission control devices are not the responsibility of the Department of Transportation. For guidance in this area, it is suggested that you write the Environmental Protection Agency, Director, Mobile Source Enforcement Division, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20460.

[If at the time of importation the vehicle is in a kit form items of equipment contained therein for which there is an applicable standard must be certified at the time of importation. They are FMVSS Nos. 106, 109, 116, 205, 209, 211, and 213.]

Generally, completely assembled kit cars must meet all applicable FMVSS in effect on the date of manufacture in order to be imported into the United States.

You are advised to carefully examine the Act, the FMVSS, as well as other regulations listed below to insure that you fully understand the extent of the responsibilities you incur upon the manufacture of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment for which there is an applicable FMVSS.

Enclosed for your information and guidance is a copy of the following:

1. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 USc 1381 et seq.)

2. 49 CFR 555, "Temporary Exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standards"

3. 49 CFR 567, "Certification"

4. 19 CFR 12.80, "Importation Regulations"

5. "Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations"

6. Form HS-189, "General Requirements of FMVSS"

7. Two Letters of interpretation regarding kit cars.

8. Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicle and Motor Vehicle Equipment.

Should you have other questions, please contact Mr. George Shifflet, a member of my staff, on telephone number 202-426-3876.

Sincerely,

ID: 86-5.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/14/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Dr. Ernst

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dr. Ernst Westfalische Metall Industrie, KG Hueck & Co. Postfach 28 40 4780 Lippstadt Federal Republic of Germany

Dear Dr. Ernst:

This is in reply to your letter of February 18, 1986, to August Burgett of this agency, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 with respect to a center highmounted stop lamp that your firm has developed. Your design contains "a large number of integrated fixed miniature bulbs...a device with a small height and a large width." It has been reported to you by a prospective purchaser that the device may not be permissible because the height is too low in relation to the width, and because the use of fixed bulbs is prohibited.

Standard No. 108 does not establish permissible dimensions for center high-mounted stop lamps, and a manufacturer may establish whatever height/width relationship it wishes, as long as the effective projected luminous area is not less than 4 1/2 square inches. However, the agency's research which substantiated the efficacy of the concept was limited to lamps of a rectangular design narrower than the one you contemplate. Some agency research has indicated that the width of the device should not be more than seven times its height.

As for the issue of fixed or replaceable bulbs, this question arises in the context of paragraph S4.1.1.41(e) of Standard No. 108 which requires that the lamp "provide access for convenient replacement of the bulb without the use of special tools". This paragraph was written with the thought that center high-mounted stop lamps would be equipped with a single bulb or light source. If your lamp is sealed, so that the individual bulbs cannot be replaced in the event of burnout but is nevertheless designed so that the entire unit may be replaced with a new lamp without the use of special tools then your lamp design would appear to meet the intent of paragraph S4.1.1.41(e).

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Subject ACTION: Interpretation of Sealed Bulb Date

Reply to Attn of Burgett 426-1351

From Barry Felrice Attn of Burgett Associate Administrator for Rulemaking

To Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

The attached request for interpretation has been received from Hella. The issues are similar to those that have been raised in she request from Stanley Electric Company for interpretation relative so use of Light Emitting Diodes. If feasible, we suggest combining both interpretations into a single response.

Attachment

Mr. Dr. August Burgett c/o National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, DC 20590 USA

K1 DrE/lb 7300

February 18, 1986 High Mounted Stop Lamps

Dear Dr. Burgett,

Long before High Mounted Stop Lamps became mandatory in the US, we were concerned with this subject. We now understand from Mercedes Germany that your agency does not approve of our design.

In order to keep vision through the rear windshield as unimpaired as possible we have developed a design with reduced dimensions and, in particular, with a reduced height.

This design makes use of special miniature bulbs with increased durability. These special bulbs have been used in a display, produced by our company, with excellent results for many years. They have a life of more than 2000 hours.

We are sure that this is much more than the expected durability of a car.

For safety, technical, and cost reasons we designed a HMS with a large number of integrated, fixed miniature bulbs. This enables us to realise a device with a small height and a large width. The attached drawings show this design.

The objections of NHTSA to a design of this type, as reported by Mercedes, are

1. The relation Width: Height must be fixed within certain limits.

If this is true, it would prohibit our design.

2. The use of fixed bulbs is prohibited, replaceable bulbs being obligatory.

We cannot find any paragraph concerning these matters, neither in MVSS 108 nor in any other regulation or standard.

Moreover, we argue that signal lamps with fixed bulbs in sealed units are known and available on the market. They are approved by US testhouses. Examples are described in the attached copies of catalogues.

We should be grateful if you would kindly consider this matter and give us binding information.

With best regards

Westfalische Metal Industrie Kommanditgesellschaft Hueck & Co.

ppa. Dr. Ernst

ID: 86-5.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/14/86

FROM: BINICHI DOI -- NSK REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE

TO: STEPHEN L. OESCH -- DEPUTY ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL FOR RULEMAKING NHTSA

TITLE: ASKING FOR RULING: A DEVICE TO MAKE REACHING FOR BELT/TONGUE EASIER

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/06/87, TO BINICHI DOI, FROM ERIKA Z ZONES, REDBOOK A30 (4) STANDARD 208, STANDARD 210

TEXT: Dear Mr. Oesch,

The enclosed sketch shows a device installed at the shoulder-anchor portion of a safety belt system which positions the tongue at an easier to reach location than the normal on-door-pillar position.

The "arm" (called "belt reacher" in the sketch) is made of material which does not interfere with the general safety/comfort of passengers and is installed semi-rotationally around the shoulder-anchor point so that it can hold the tongue in a convenient position for reaching. At the same time, it complies with the movement of the belt for its original protective function.

Your kind consideration and a prompt as possible ruling as to the installation of such a device in vehicles offered with this type of safety belt system will be appreciated by us.

Very truly yours,

ENCLOSURE

ID: 86-5.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/17/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Diane K. Steed; NHTSA

TO: Douglas Applegate

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

The Honorable Douglas Applegate U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Applegate:

Thank you for your letter enclosing correspondence from your constituent, Mr. Thomas Ash of past Liverpool, who asked about our school bus definition. I appreciate this opportunity to respond to your concerns.

Mr. Ash explained in his letter to you that Ohio considers vehicles carrying 10 or more student passengers as school buses. be stated that because a vehicle carrying 9 or fewer passengers is not a "school bus" under state law, it may be operated by staff members and advisors who do not have the special qualifications required by the state for school bus drivers. Since the East Liverpool Board of Education would like to use 15-passenger vans operated by those staff members and advisors to carry school children to school related events, it is interested in changing Ohio's definition of a school bus to exclude such vans. Because the state definition of a school bus adopts the Federal definition of that term, Mr. Ash asks us to explain the reasons for our school bus definition.

The definition is governed by legislation enacted by Congress. In accordance with Congress's mandate in the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Admendment of 1974, NHTSA has issued safety standards for all new school buses. In the Act, Congress mandated that the safety standards apply to all school buses that are designed to carry more than 10 passengers to ensure that all vehicles likely to be significantly used for student transportation would be subject to comprehensive safety standards.

The East Liverpool City Schools can purchase new 15-passenger vans, conforming to our standards, for use in transporting its pupils to school-related events. However, under the Act and our safety standards, a dealer selling h new 15-passenger van to a school district for the purpose of carrying children to and from school or on school-related trips must ensure that the vehicle conforms to all of our school bus safety standards.

Our schoolbus safety standards apply only to the manufacture and sale of new schoolbuses and do not regulate issues of vehicle operation such as driver training or qualifications. The authority to govern the operation of vehicles rests with the State. NHTSA has issued guidelines to the States to assist them in setting up their own highway safety programs. Ohio's decision to require all drivers of school buses to have special training or a special license is consistent with the recommendations we have issued on pupil transportation safety. Those recommendations are found in Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, a copy of which is enclosed for your information. I want to emphasize that the States are not required to follow our guidelines and can modify them to meet their pupil transportation needs.

Sincerely,

Diane K. Steed

Enclosure

Ms. Diane Steed, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, SW Room 520 Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Ms. Steed:

Enclosed is a copy of a letter I received from Mr. Thomas Ash, regarding the rationale for defining a school "bus" as a passenger vehicle accommodating more than nine people.

The East Liverpool School District, East Liverpool. Ohio, has pointed out that the use of a fifteen passenger van would be more practical and economical.

Please review Mr. Ash's letter and respond to me as soon as possible.

Sincerely Yours,

DOUGLAS APPLEGATE Member of Congress

DA/wt Enclosure

October 10, 1986

The Honorable Douglas Applegate United States House of Representatives 2464 Rayburn House Office Building Washington. D. C. 20515

Dear Congressman Applegate:

I appreciate very much your prompt response to my inquiry regarding National Highway Traffic Safety Administration rules and regulations regarding school buses. Perhaps it would be useful if I explained in more detail my inquiry.

For some time now, the East Liverpool Board of Education has expressed a desire to carry more than nine passengers in vans. particularly for field trips or athletic contests away from town. This request is prompted primarily by economic considerations, since the driver of a van with nine or fewer passengers need not possess school bus driver endorsements. This is meant that our regular certificated staff members and advisors can operate these vehicles.

However, we have noted that fifteen-passenger vans are also available and seem comparable, and perhaps even superior, to the construction of the nine-passenger vans which are permitted. As we research this issue, we found immediately that the definition of a school bus, under Ohio law, is restricted to vehicles which transport more than nine student passengers, not including the driver. We immediately began exploring the rationale behind this restriction since, again, it seemed to us that a fifteen-passenger van could be used equally as well as the smaller van. We believed that the regulations as adopted by the State of Ohio did not reflect the technology and design of passenger vans from the major automobile manufacturers.

As we continued our research. we found that the state regulations reflected the Ohio Revised Code. However. it was not possible to contact state legislators regarding this matter since existing Ohio law reflects directly the rules and regulations of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Therefore, there is little hope of effecting any change on the state level until the existing federal regulation can be changed.

Naturally, I am not suggesting that the NHTSA rule be changed without some additional study. There very well could be some rationale behind the existing restriction that requires that vehicles transporting more than nine students be classified as school buses.

My reason for contacting your office was to enlist your assistance in gaining such an explanation from the NHTSA. I hope that this explanation clarifies my request regarding this matter. and I am deeply appreciative of your efforts on our behalf.

With best regards, I am,

Very truly yours,

Thomas P. Ash Superintendent of Schools

TPA:mle

cc: Charles R. Thomas, Jr.

ID: 86-5.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/17/86

FROM: JOHN GRIFFIN -- PRESIDENT FRAZER BILT INC

TO: TAYLOR VINSON -- LEGAL COUNSEL N.H.T.S.A. U.S. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/06/87 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO JOHN GRIFFIN, REDBOOK A30, STANDARD 108, ID AND CLEARANCE LAMP

TEXT: Dear Sir:

Mr. Kevin Cavey suggested that I write you regarding issues of interest to our company. We manufacture emergency medical service vehicles (ambulances). These vehicles are typically mounted on a light duty truck chasis, and are over 80" in width.

The ambulance industry typically defers to the opinions and rulings of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards in the placing of identification and clearance lights on emergency vehicles. This often presents a conflict with respect to placing emergency lights and/or lightbars at preferred locations on the ambulance. For example, a light bar above the double rear doors may be placed as high as possible and thereby give no room for identification lights. A similar situation with a front light bar is not relevant since the chassis manufacturer places clearance and identification lamps on the driver's cab roof.

Mr. Cavey indicated his belief that fire engines and E.M.S. vehicles may be exempt from identification and clearance light requirements, but I have not found such a statement in the preamble to Standard 108.

Please advise me of any ruling that might clarify this issue.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely

ID: 86-5.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/21/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Lisa Kreeger

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Lisa Kreeger Reichert, Strauss & Reed 2510 Carew Tower Cincinnati, OH 15202

Dear Ms. Kreeger:

This responds to your letters of June 27, 1986, and July 11, 1986, and your subsequent phone conversations with Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning the safety belt installation requirements for multipurpose passenger vehicles and buses. I regret the delay in our response and hope the following information is of assistance to you.

As Mr. Oesch discussed with you, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, sets forth the safety belt installation requirements for passenger cars, trucks, multipurpose passenger vehicles and buses. The standard, a copy of which is enclosed, regulates only the installation of safety belts and does not require their use. However, the Federal Highway Administration's Office of Motor Carriers has issued a regulation (49 CFR Part 392.161 that requires safety belt use by operators of trucks and buses involved in interstate commerce. Belt use is also governed by State mandatory use laws.

S4.2.2 and S4.3 of the standard set forth the safety belt installation requirements for new multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's). Our regulations (49 CFR 571.3) define an MPV as a "motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." S4.2.2 and S4.3 of Standard No. 208 require the installation of a safety belt for each designated seating position in a MPV.

S4.4 of the standard sets forth the safety belt installation requirements for buses. Our regulations define a bus as a "motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons." S4.4 of Standard No. 208 requires the installation of a safety belt at only the driver's designated seating position in a bus. The agency has set additional safety belt requirements for school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less. S5(b) of standard No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection, requires the installation of a safety belt at the passenger seats in those small school buses. A copy of Standard No. 222 is enclosed.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Erika Jones, ESQ. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th St., SW, Room 5219 Washington, DC 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

Pursuant to a phone conversation with a receptionist in your office today, I learned that my previous written request request for information had not been received or responded to. Enclosed is a copy of that request. I also spoke to Mr. Ash on July 1, 1896, asking for further information. As of this date I have not received a response from your agency.

Would you please send me a copy of the interpretation of Title 49 of the Code of federal Regulations, Chapter 571, Number 208, Section 4.4 If there are other sections that are applicable to either the bus (more than 10 passengers) or van (less than 10 passengers) seat belt requirement, please include those interpretations also. It is my understanding that in a bus, only the operator must wear a seat belt, while in a van, all passengers must wear seat belts, but I am hoping to find authority to confirm that understanding.

Thank you,

Lisa Kreeger Law Clerk

June 27, 1986

Erika Jones, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W., Room 400 Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

Today in a telephone conversation with Mr. Stephen Ash, learned that copies of formal interpretations of federal regulations be obtained from you upon written request. Would you please send me a copy of the interpretation of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 571, Number 208, Section 4.4. If there are other sections that are applicable to the seatbelt requirements for leased buses that carry between 15 and 25 passengers, please include those interpretations also. It is my understanding that only the operator must wear a seat belt but I am hoping to find authority to confirm that understanding.

Thank you,

Lisa Kreeger