ID: nht94-2.11

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 1, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

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

TITLE: None

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

TEXT:

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

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

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

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

ID: 9660

Mr. Marc D. Marutani
National Truck Sales Manager
ARI
9000 Midlantic Dr.
P.O. Box 5039
Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054

Dear Mr. Marutani:

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:571 d:4/l/94

ID: nht94-7.9

DATE: April 1, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

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

TITLE: None

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

TEXT:

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

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

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

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

ID: aiam0165

Dear Mr. Serota: This is in further response to your letter dated April 9, 1969 addressed to Robert M. O'Mahoney, which has been referred to this Bureau.; The location you have selected on the windshield wiper motor bracket as shown in your enclosed drawing number 69028, sheet 2, is approved as an alternative to the specified locations. We note, however, that you intend to use binding-head screws as your method of attachment. This method does not appear to fulfill the requirements of permanency and destruction on removal in section 367.4(b) of the Certification Regulations, 49 CFR Part 367.; As issued January 24, 1969 (34 F.R. 1148) the above section reads: 'Th label shall be permanently affixed in such a manner that it cannot be removed without the use of tools and without destroying it.' a proposal issued on April 29, 1969 (34 F.R. 7032) would amend the section to read: 'The label shall be permanently affixed in such a manner that it cannot be removed without destroying it.' The requirements of permanency and destruction on removal remain in both versions.; Your cooperation is appreciated. Sincerely, Robert Brenner, Acting Director

ID: aiam2157

Dear Ms. Freeston: This is in response to your letter of February 10, 1976, in which yo request our opinion concerning the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302 to mattresses.; You are correct in saying that the amendment to S4.2 of Standard No 302, promulgated on March 31, 1975 (40 FR 14318), extends the coverage of the standard to '(a)ny portion of a single or composite material which is within 1/2 inch of the occupant compartment air space...' S4.1 of the standard provides, however, that '(t)he portions described in S.4.2 of the following components shall meet the requirements (of the standard)....' S4.1 then lists the components to which the standard applies. While mattress covers are included in the listing, mattresses are not. Consequently, Standard No. 302 does not apply to mattresses as such.; You should be aware that a notice of proposed rulemaking was als issued on March 31, 1975 (40 FR 14340) proposing that any material within 1/2 inch of the occupant compartment air space meet the requirements of the standard. Should this proposal be adopted, mattresses would fall within the purview of Standard No. 302. I have enclosed a copy of the proposed rule for your further information.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2913

Dear Mr. Sambucetti: This responds to your October 30, 1978, request to know how th National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) expects a trailer manufacturer to provide the lateral stability necessary to remain within a 12-foot-wide lane while stopping from 60 mph in the absence of antilock installation. Your question follows from an interpretation of the recent Ninth Circuit ruling in which the agency stated its view that trailers are still required to stop from 60 mph within the 12-foot-wide lane, but without the capability of 'no lockup' performance.; In interpreting the court's ruling that 'no lockup' performance o trailers was invalid, the NHTSA recognized that the 12-foot-wide lane requirement would probably also be invalid if the requirement for 90 p.s.i. air pressure in the trailer control line during the stop remained effective. As you know, there is no stopping distance for trailers that would otherwise require a strong brake application and resulting loss of lateral stability. The agency therefore concluded that the 90 p.s.i. requirement was invalidated, stating in its October 19th interpretation,; >>>It does appear that the requirement for 90 p.s.i. air pressure i the trailer control line during the stop constitutes a portion of the 'no lockup' requirement and is therefore invalidated by the court.<<<; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0965

Dear Mr. Stewart: This is in reply to your letter of December 4, 1972, requesting certai interpretations of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release'.; You ask whether emergency-exit release' requirements (S5.3.1) can b met by an exit (a window in your case) which is merely pushed out for passenger egress, or whether the exit must be mechanically locked in place. Although you do not describe your system in detail, it does not appear to us that a window that can be pushed out' without a latch or other mechanism' can possibly satisfy the standard. S5.3.1 of the standard reads, Each push- out window or other emergency exit shall have a release mechanism or mechanisms located within the regions specified...' More importantly, however, the quantitative requirements of the standard make a release mechanism necessary. The retention requirements of S5.1 specify that the window in its normal configuration shall withstand a force of up to 1200 pounds, or until the glass itself breaks or stretches a specified amount. S5.3, in contrast, requires that the window shall be releasable by the application of forces not exceeding 60 pounds.; You ask whether the requirement of S5.1(b) is intended to reflec possible results of applying the test sphere to tempered glass. This requirement, which was clarified in the *Federal Register* of September 6, 1972 (37 F.R. 18034), applies to any bus window which is subject to S5.1. While the requirement does reflect the performance of tempered glass, it is expressed in terms of performance and its application is therefore not limited only to tempered glass.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1748

Dear Mr. Wilson: This responds to your request for consideration of Mr. J. M. Chandler' December 31, 1974, request for reconsideration of Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems*, because of its costs.; Standard No. 121 requires that newly- manufactured air-braked vehicle stop from speeds of up to 60 mph on wet and dry surfaces in the loaded and unloaded condition, without leaving a 12-foot-wide lane and without lockup of wheels above 10 mph. These performance requirements are based on a safety need for improved braking performance on air brake- equipped highway vehicles. Controlled stopping within the traffic lane is particularly important to tractor-trailer combinations to avoid 'jackknife' skids. The incompatibility of vehicle sizes can be reduced significantly by establishing equal stopping distances for trucks and passenger cars.; We have analyzed the costs and benefits to be gained in upgradin truck, bus, and trailer braking performance and have concluded that the savings in lives, injury, and property damage justify the incremental costs of this standard. Standard 121 does not require retrofit of vehicles manufactured prior to the standard's effective date.; From a cost standpoint, it is noteworthy that the arguments fo increased weight limits for commercial vehicles relied, in part, on the increased braking performance of vehicles which meet Standard No. 121. A major reason for the heavier vehicles would be to reduce the costs of transportation, and Standard No. 121 contributes directly to that goal.; As you may be aware, the NHTSA has in fact proposed postponement of th standard due to the current economic situation. Based on several hundred comments, there was persuasive evidence that a delay at this late date would create far greater dislocation in the automotive industry than would a January 1, 1975, implementation. A copy of our decision not to postpone the standard is enclosed.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1671

Dear Mr. Bertolini: This responds to your October 17, 1974, letter to President Ford askin that the Federal government consider a delay of the effective date for Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems*, because of its cost to vehicle manufacturers and to their customers.; Standard No. 121 requires that newly- manufactured air-braked vehicle stop from speeds of up to 60 mph on wet and dry surfaces in the loaded and unloaded condition, without leaving a 12-foot-wide lane and without lockup of wheels above 10 mph. These performance requirements are based on a safety need for improved braking performance on air brake- equipped highway vehicles. Controlled stopping within the traffic lane is particularly important to tractor-trailer combinations to avoid 'jackknife' skids.; We have analyzed the costs and benefits to be gained in upgradin truck, bus, and trailer braking performance and have concluded that the savings in lives, injury, and property damage justify the incremental costs of this standard.; The standard only applies to new vehicles because our statutor authority to regulate motor vehicle safety does not extend to used vehicles (15 U.S.C S 1397(b)(1)).; As for a differential in performance between heavy and lighte vehicles, we already have issued a Standard No. 108-75 *Hydraulic brake systems*, which mandates comparable stopping performance for hydraulic-braked vehicles, effective September 1, 1975.; From a cost standpoint, it is noteworthy that proponents of increase size and weight limits for commercial vehicles rely, in part, on the increased braking performance of vehicles which meet Standard No. 121. A major reason for the larger vehicles would be to reduce the costs of transportation, and Standard No. 121 contributes directly to that goal.; Standard No. 121 has already been delayed for two years and we do no have plans to further delay the standard, for the reasons stated above.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3962

Dear Ms. Walborn: After the promulgation of the Federal odometer disclosure requirements 49 CFR Part 580, the State of Pennsylvania requested from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, approval to use the certificate of title in lieu of a separate odometer disclosure statement. The Agency granted that request.; It has come to our attention that some dealers have purchased vehicles altered the odometer reading on the title and subsequently reassigned the title, without signing it and without listing their address. While the Pennsylvania title provides a space for the purchaser's address and signature, the information is apparently furnished only when the buyer applies for title. Due to the practice of permitting a dealer to reassign titles without applying for them in his own name, it has become necessary for us to qualify our initial determination.; Unless the first buyer applies for title in Pennsylvania, a separat odometer disclosure statement, signed by the buyer and containing his address must be issued and a photostat or other facsimile retained by the transferor. This information is required by 49 CFR 580.4, and must be included upon the certificate of title before that document can be used in lieu of a separate statement. 49 CFR 480.4(f)(1) (sic). The Agency finds the buyer's signature to be of utmost importance. The signature serves as an acknowledgement that the purchaser was aware of the mileage. It prevents the buyer from later alleging that he was not informed of the mileage or that the mileage was different from that appearing on the odometer. Likewise, the address of an intervening dealer-owner is important, should subsequent investigation or enforcement actions become necessary. You may find it feasible to change the format of Pennsylvania's title to include the purchaser's address and signature on the assignment or reassignment space.; If I can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact me or Ms Judith Kaleta of my staff at (202) 426-1834.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel