ID: nht91-4.46

DATE: July 11, 1991

FROM: Jack Garbo -- President/General Counsel, AVM Products, Inc.

TO: Mary Versailles -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-14-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Jack Garbo (A38; Std. 208)

TEXT:

Per our recent telephone conversation, I am writing to get clarification on the issue of whether the three-point seatbelt is required in all middle and rear outboard seating positions in the multipurpose vehicles after September 1, 1991.

My understanding is that the revised FMVSS 208 pertains only to forward facing chairs and sofas, and specifically excludes rearward facing furniture.

My company manufactures a small sofa which is mounted on a quick release track system. This sofa faces rearward and is equipped with two lap seatbelts.

Please let me know if I am interpreting the language of the regulation properly.

Thank you very much for assistance in helping us with this question.

ID: nht91-4.47

DATE: July 12, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by other (name illegible)

TO: Roddy Williams -- Container Enterprise

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-28-91 from Roddy Williams to Paul J. Rice (OCC 609?)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter that asked whether your company is permitted to assign its own Vehicle Identification Numbers (VINs) pursuant to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No 115, Vehicle Identification Number--Basic Requirements (49 CFR S571.115) to trailers that it "remanufactures" from previously used trailers. The answer is that a company that performs the remanufacturing operations described in your letter may assign a new VIN to its remanufactured trailers. By doing so, however, the trailers would be treated as newly manufactured trailers for the purposes of this agency's safety standards and regulations. Among other things, this would mean that your company would be required to certify that the trailers comply with all applicable safety standards in effect as of the date of the remanufacturing operations, including the lighting, tire, and brake standards applicable to new trailers.

In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated that your company, Container Enterprise, works on trailers that were used to carry cargo containers. You stated that approximately 90% of the trailers that Container Enterprise works on were originally built between 1974 and 1979. Container Enterprise takes used container chassis that are 23 feet long and removes the axles and half of the crossmembers on the original frame. Container Enterprise then manufactures a 12 foot subframe and reinstalls the used axles on this subframe. The subframe is then attached to the container chassis, extending its chassis length to 27 feet. The conversion allows the chassis to slide open or closed. You stated that upon completion of this process, Container Enterprise will issue "a new manufacturer plate with a new VIN number" and date of remanufacture.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 115, which applies to all new vehicles. S4.1 of Standard No. 115 specifies that vehicles manufactured in one stage shall have a VIN assigned by the vehicle manufacturer and S4.5 specifies that the assigned VIN shall appear clearly and indelibly on the vehicle.

Thus, the only person that can assign a VIN to a vehicle is the vehicle's manufacturer. The question then is whether your company's "remanufacturing" operations are substantial enough that the remanufactured trailers should be considered to be new vehicles and the manufacturer of those vehicles would be your company, instead of the original manufacturer of the trailer.

NHTSA's regulations specifically address the question of when trailers produced by combining new components (the subframe fabricated by your company) and used components (the parts of the used container chassis) are considered to be new trailers. 49 CFR S571.7(f) states that when new and used components are used in trailer manufacture, the trailer will be considered "newly manufactured" unless the following three conditions are met. First, the trailer running gear assembly, which includes the axle(s), wheels, braking and suspension, is not new, and was taken from an existing trailer. Second, the existing trailer's identity is continued in the reassembled vehicle with respect to the Vehicle Identification Number. Third, the existing trailer is owned or leased by the user of the reassembled vehicle.

You have stated that your company would assign new VINs to the trailers it remanufactures. Upon doing so, the second condition in S571.7(f), continuing use of the original VIN, would not be met. Therefore, the trailers "remanufactured" by your company would be considered to be newly manufactured. Your company, as the manufacturer, must certify that these trailers comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect at the time of the remanufacture. This means that, in addition to complying with the 1991 requirements of Standard No. 115, your company would be required to certify that the trailers comply with the 1991 versions of the lighting standard (Standard No. 108), the tire and rim standard (Standard No. 120), and the air brake standard (Standard No. 121), to name a few examples of applicable standards. To assist you in making any such certifications, I am enclosing a brochure that briefly describes each of the safety standards and an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles that explains how to get copies of our standards and regulations.

Your letter also referred to U. S. Department of the Treasury Publication 510 on Excise Taxes. We can only tell you that your remanufactured trailers with new VINs would be considered new vehicles for the purposes of the Safety Act and the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If you have any questions about the trailers for purposes of excise taxes, you should contact the Internal Revenue Service. Their District Office for Louisiana it located at 500 Camp Street, New Orleans, LA 70130.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Attachment

Information sheet from NHTSA dated September 1985 entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment. (Text omitted)

Attachment

Information sheet from NHTSA dated September 1985 entitled Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations. (Text omitted)

ID: nht91-4.48

DATE: July 12, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by Ken Weinstein)

TO: Samuel Albury -- President, Three Wolves and Associates, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-3-91 from Samuel Albury to Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 6112)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of June 3, 1991 concerning whether your company would be considered the manufacturer of certain vehicles. Your company is planning to use jeep conversion kits on Chrysler Corporation jeeps. Under one approach, your company would purchase the basic stripped down model jeep from Chrysler and add the body, stereo, air conditioning, tires, running lights, carpeting, and high visibility seats. You state that the body would be one solid piece and that your company would add wheel wells, doors, a solid or canvas top, and a windshield. Alternatively, your company would purchase the chassis, with engine and transmission, from Chrysler and add the above items.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. As you are aware, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 et seq., the Safety Act), to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. I will address the responsibilities of your company under the Safety Act in each of the situations you described. First, if your company purchased a stripped down vehicle from Chrysler and made the modifications described, it could be considered an alterer under our regulations. Under 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, an alterer is defined as:

A person who alters a vehicle that has previously been certified . . . other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, . . . before the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale . . . .

As an alterer, your company would be required to certify compliance of its vehicles with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards in accordance with 49 CFR Part 567. The only exception would be if:

1. The modifications consisted solely of "readily attachable components;" or

2. The modifications were only "minor finishing operations."

Whether modifications involve "readily attachable" components depends on the difficulty in attaching those components. In the past, the agency has looked at such factors as the intricacy of installation and the need for special expertise. Without extraordinary ease of installation, NHTSA would not consider modifications involving the addition or substitution of seats to involve "readily attachable" components.

If considered an alterer, your company would be subject to the certification requirements of 49 CFR S567.7. These requirements include provisions that the alterer supplement the existing manufacturer certification label, which must remain on the vehicle, by affixing an additional label. The label would state that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The label would also state the alterer and the month and the year in which the alterations were completed.

In addition to these certification requirements, an alterer is considered a "manufacturer" for the purposes of the Safety Act. Among other things, this means an alterer is responsible for notification and remedy of defects related to motor vehicle safety and noncompliances with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, as specified in sections 151-160 of the Safety Act. Alterers also are subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Reports.

Second, as an alternative, your company is considering buying a chassis from Chrysler. In that case, your company would likely be considered a final-stage manufacturer. Under 49 CFR Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages, a final-stage manufacturer is defined as:

A person who performs such manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a completed vehicle.

Under the regulation, incomplete vehicle is defined as

An assemblage consisting, as a minimum, of frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations, other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed vehicle.

As a final-stage manufacturer, your company's certification responsibilities would depend on the information provided by the manufacturer of the incomplete vehicle. Under 49 CFR Part 568, the incomplete vehicle manufacturer must furnish your company with a document which states one of the following three things concerning the incomplete vehicle:

1. The vehicle when completed will conform to some or all of the applicable safety standards if no alterations are made to any identified components of the incomplete vehicle;

2. The vehicle when completed will conform to some or all of the applicable safety standards if specific conditions are followed by the final-stage manufacturer;

3. Conformity with some or all of the applicable safety standards is not substantially affected by the design of the incomplete vehicle, so the incomplete vehicle manufacturer makes no representation as to conformity with the standards.

After receiving this document from the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, your company would be required to certify compliance with the safety standards. In addition to these certification requirements, a final-stage manufacturer is considered a "manufacturer" for the purposes of the Safety Act. Among other things, this means a final-stage manufacturer is responsible for notification and remedy of defects related to motor vehicle safety and noncompliances with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, as specified in sections 151-160 of the Safety Act. In addition, final-stage manufacturers are subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Reports.

I am also enclosing a general information sheet for manufacturers of new vehicles. This sheet highlights the relevant Federal statutes and regulations and explains how to obtain copies of the regulations.

I hope that this information is useful. If you have any further questions, please contact John Rigby at 202-366-2992.

ID: nht91-4.49

DATE: July 12, 1991

FROM: Garth C. Bates, Jr. -- Vice President, Stewart & Stevenson Services, Inc.

TO: Paul J. Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: B. Felrice; F. Grubbe; D. Bates; L. Austin

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-30-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Garth C. Bates, Jr. (A38; Std. 301)

TEXT:

Recent discussions with Mr. Barry Felrice and Mr. Fred Grubbe at NHTSA have been very helpful in the planning phase of our carbon fiber, CNG automotive fuel tank program.

As previously discussed, we believe that high quality, carbon fiber tanks are an economical alternative to the present steel/aluminum tanks. Their use will speed the utilization of CNG automotive fuels without compromising safety in any fashion.

It is our understanding that currently there exist no DOT/NHTSA regulations governing the construction or testing of such tanks. For business purposes, we would like to request a letter from NHTSA confirming the above. Mr. Felrice advises us that you are the appropriate source of such a document, and we would very much appreciate your assistance.

ID: nht91-4.5

DATE: May 23, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; (Signature by S. Wood)

TO: Bill Lewandoski (Lewandowski) -- Account Manager, Kelsey Products Division

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-30-91 from Bill Lewandowski to Taylor Vinson; Also attached to letter dated 11-22-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to William J. Lewandoski (A38; Std. 108); Also attached to letter dated 7-9-91 from William J. Lewandowski to Robert Helluth (OCC 6245)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of April 30, 1991, to Taylor Vinson of this Office with respect to the regulation of trailer stop lamp activation by Standard No. 108.

You have enclosed a photocopy of literature on the Tekonsha Voyager electronic brake control. This system incorporates a manual override side bar that manually activates the trailer brakes without a corresponding activation of the trailer stop lamps. The reason for this is the manufacturer's view that "STOPPING IS NOT THE INTENT. BY NOT DRIVING THE STOPLIGHTS DURING MANUAL ACTIVATION, THE VOYAGER ELIMINATES FALSE BRAKE LIGHT SIGNALS . . . ." The literature carries the notation that "THE VOYAGER AND VOYAGER XP MEET NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRANSPORTATION (sic) SAFETY ADMINISTRATION (N.H.T.S.A.) REGULATIONS REGARDING TOW VEHICLE/TRAILER LIGHT APPLICATION." You have asked whether Standard No. 108 permits application of the trailer brakes without activation of the towing vehicle/trailer stop lamps.

It does not. Tekonsha misunderstands the function of a stop lamp. A stop lamp not only indicates the intent of the driver to stop, but also the intent of the driver "to diminish speed by braking." (see the definition of "stop lamp" in SAE Standard J568c, Stop Lamps, August 1970, incorporated by reference in Standard No.108). Paragraph S5.5.4 of Standard No. 108 requires that "The stop lamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes." The Voyager electronic control applies the service brakes to diminish vehicle speed, and therefore the stop lamps are required to be activated.

The installation of the Voyager by a manufacturer or dealer before the initial sale of a trailer would therefore appear to be a violation of Standard No. 108 since its operation would create a noncompliance with the standard. As an aftermarket device, it is subject to the "render inoperative" prohibition of 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A). Any manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business installing the device after the trailer's initial sale is, in effect, rendering the trailer's stop lamps inoperative when the device is used. Civil penalties are provided for with respect to violations of either Standard No. 108, or section 1397(a)(2)(A). The statement as to compliance with NHTSA regulations is wrong.

We appreciate your bringing this matter to our attention. I am forwarding a copy of your letter to our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance for such further action as it deems appropriate.

ID: nht91-4.50

DATE: July 16, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Allen I. Swenson -- The Compliance Group, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-23-91 from Allen I. Swenson to Robert F. Helmuth (OCC 6085)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to Robert Hellmuth, the Director of NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, seeking information about a recent amendment requiring lap/shoulder belts to be installed at rear outboard seating positions in light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles. You were particularly interested in the requirements for readily removable seats at such positions. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulation to you.

As you correctly noted, NHTSA published a final rule on July 30, 1990 (55 FR 30914), addressing requirements for lap/shoulder belts to be installed in all forward-facing rear outboard seating positions in light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles. That July 30 final rule specifically addressed the issue of lap/shoulder belts at readily removable seats (that is, seats designed to be easily removed and replaced by means installed by the manufacturer for that purpose). In response to a petition by Ford, the agency included the following discussion in the preamble to the July 30 rule (see 55 FR 30914, at 30916-30917):

. . . These vehicles do not currently use, nor did Ford plan to begin using, a release mechanism that complies with the requirements that are scheduled to take effect on September 1, 1991, Accordingly, Ford will need to make the changes described in its petition. NHTSA has concluded that an additional year of leadtime is needed to allow Ford to make the necessary changes. Therefore, this notice delays the requirement for rear seat lap/shoulder belts to be installed at outboard seating positions on readily removable seats for one year, so that it now applies to vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1992.

Hence, outboard seating positions on readily removable seats in light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles are not required to be equipped with lap/shoulder belts until September 1, 1992. Before that date, those seating positions may be equipped with either lap-only belts or with lap/shoulder belts, at the manufacturer's option.

I hope this information is useful. If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of this office at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-2.46

DATE: 11/03/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: JAMES A. WESTPHAL -- OSHKOSH CHASSIS DIVISION, OSHKOSH TRUCK CORPORATION

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 9-2-92 FROM JAMES A. WESTPHAL, OSHKOSH, TO NHTSA ADMINISTRATOR (OCC 7745)

TEXT: This letter responds to your inquiry about which Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards would be applicable to certain incomplete vehicles (chassis less cab) that you manufacture for motor homes. You anticipate that the motor homes will have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) over 10,000 pounds but less than 26,000 pounds.

Your letter indicated that Oshkosh plans to install brake systems in the two models which use compressed air to provide braking power, and hydraulic fluid to transmit the energy to the hydraulically activated disc brakes at each wheel. You stated that this system is commonly known as "air-over-hydraulic."

The following is in response to your four specific questions:

1. Must the brake system comply with the requirements of Standard No. 121 applicable to trucks?

The answer to question number one is yes. The agency classifies air-over-hydraulic brake systems as air brake systems. Accordingly, vehicles equipped with air-over-hydraulic brake systems are required to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 121. I am enclosing a July 20, 1984 interpretation letter to Ms. Margaret Moore Oba which discusses this issue at length.

2. Must the brake system comply with the requirements of Standard No. 105 applicable to multipurpose passenger vehicles?

The answer to question number two is no. Standard No. 105 only applies to vehicles with hydraulic brake systems. Since your system is air-over-hydraulic, it is considered to be an air brake system and not a hydraulic brake system.

3. If Standard No. 121 compliance is required must the hydraulically powered disc brakes comply with Section S5.4 Service brake system -- dynamometer tests?

The answer to question number three is yes. The requirements of S5.4 are among the requirements specified in Standard No. 121 for each vehicle equipped with air brakes.

4. If compliance to parts of both Standards 121 and 105 is required, must the system meet the requirements of the following sections in Standard No. 105: S5.1.2 Partial Failure, S5.1.3 Inoperative brake power assist or brake power unit, and/or S5.3 Brake system indicator lamp.

As indicated above, air-over hydraulic brake systems are not required to meet the requirements of Standard No. 105.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-2.47

DATE: 11/03/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: JULIA WALL -- HEAD OF SCHOOL, THE TRINITY SCHOOL OF TEXAS

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 09-01-92 (EST.) FROM JULIA WALL TO D.O.T. (OCC 7738)

TEXT: This responds to your letter to the Department of Transportation seeking a copy of the federal law regulating student transportation in general, and as it specifically relates to multiple passenger vans. I assume that your use of the term multiple passenger vans refers to vans with seats to the rear of the driver.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to clarify Federal law as it relates to school buses. By way of background information, NHTSA has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, in order to reduce the number of fatalities and injuries that result from motor vehicle crashes.

Under NHTSA's regulations, passenger vans are generally classified as either multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's) or buses. The MPV category includes passenger vans which carry ten persons or less; passenger vans which carry more than ten persons are buses. Under the agency's definitions, a "school bus" is a type of bus sold for transporting students to and from school or school-related events.

All MPV's and buses are required to meet Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, in the legislative history of the School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974, Congress stated that school transportation should be held to the highest level of safety. Accordingly, NHTSA has issued special Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all new school buses.

Like all safety standards, NHTSA's school bus standards impose obligations on the manufacturers and sellers of new motor vehicles, not upon the subsequent users of these vehicles. It is a violation of Federal law for any person to sell any new vehicle that does not comply with all school bus safety standards if the vehicle capacity is more than 10 persons, and if the seller is aware that the purchaser intends to use the vehicle as a school bus. On the other hand, without violating any provision of Federal law, a school may use a vehicle which does not comply with Federal school bus regulations to transport school children. This is so because the individual States, not the Federal government, have authority over the use of vehicles.

However, I would like to call your attention to a guideline that NHTSA has issued under the authority of the Highway Safety Act of 1966. That Act authorizes the agency to issue guidelines for states to use in developing their highway safety programs. NHTSA issued Highway Safety Program Guideline 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, to provide recommendations to the states on various operational aspects of their school bus and pupil transportation safety programs. Guideline 17 recommends that any vehicle designed for carrying more than 10 persons which is used as a school bus comply with all safety standards applicable to school buses at the time the vehicle was manufactured. A copy of Guideline 17 is enclosed.

In conclusion, it is not a violation of Federal law for your school to use vans for transportation of school children; however, use of these vehicles may be restricted by Texas law. I must emphasize NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students. I strongly recommend that you give your most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting school children in vehicles that do not comply with those standards.

I hope this information will be helpful to you. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of this office at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-2.48

DATE: 11/03/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: G. THOMAS OWENS -- SENIOR ENGINEERING REPRESENTATIVE, AETNA

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 9-9-92 FROM G. THOMAS OWENS TO OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA (OCC 7764)

TEXT: This responds to your letter requesting information regarding the legal aspects of school bus safety standards. Specifically, you requested a book or pamphlet containing the requested information.

By way of background information, under the provisions of the National "Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq. (Safety Act), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to promulgate Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, in order to reduce the number of fatalities and injuries that result from motor vehicle crashes. In 1974 Congress enacted the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974 which, by amending section 121 of the Safety Act, directed the issuance of motor vehicle safety standards on specific aspects of school bus safety, applicable to all school buses. Those standards became effective on April 1, 1977 and are included, along with the rest of the agency's safety standards, in 49 CFR Part 571.

The Safety Act defines a school bus as a vehicle that "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." NHTSA further defines a school bus as a motor vehicle designed for carrying eleven or more persons, including the driver, and sold for transporting students to and from school or school-related events. See 49 CFR 571.3.

It is a violation of Federal law for any person knowingly to sell as a school bus any new vehicle that does not comply with all applicable Federal school bus safety standards. On the other hand, once a vehicle has been sold to the first purchaser for purposes other than resale, it may be used to transport school children without violating Federal law, even though it may not comply with Federal school bus safety standards. That is because individual states have the authority to regulate the use of vehicles. Therefore, to ascertain whether one may use noncomplying vehicles to transport school children, one must look to state law. It is this agency's position that vehicles meeting Federal school bus safety standards are the safest way to transport school children.

Please find enclosed a pamphlet issued by this agency entitled Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations, which summarizes our safety standards. Specifically, the following standards include requirements for school buses:

Standards 101 through 104;

Standards 105 (school buses with hydraulic brakes)

Standards 106 through 108; Standards 111 through 113;

Standard 115;

Standard 116 (school buses with hydraulic service brakes);

Standards 119 and 120;

Standard 121 (school buses with air brakes);

Standard 124;

Standard 131 (effective September 1, 1992);

Standards 201 through 204 (school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less);

Standard 205;

Standards 207 through 210;

Standard 212 (school buses with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less);

Standard 217;

Standard 219 (school buses with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less);

Standard 220;

Standard 221 (school buses with GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds);

Standard 222;

Standards 301 and 302.

Some of the above-listed standards have unique requirements for school buses, including, but not necessarily limited to, Standards 105, 108, 111, 217, and 301. Other standards are applicable only to school buses, such as Standards 131, 220, 221, and 222. Standard 131 was promulgated on May 3, 1991 and may be found at 56 Federal Register 20370. It requires all school buses manufactured after September 1, 1992, to be equipped with stop signal arms. Standard 220 establishes requirements for school bus rollover protection. Standard 221 establishes strength requirements for school bus body panel joints. Standard 222 establishes minimum crash protection levels for occupants of school buses. Under the provisions of Standard 222, small school buses, that is those with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, must be equipped with lap belts. For large school buses, those with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds, the standard requires occupant protection through "compartmentalization," a concept which calls for strong, well-padded, well-anchored, high-backed, evenly spaced seats.

Should you wish copies of our safety standards, I am enclosing for your information a fact sheet prepared by this office entitled Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions in this regard, please feel free to contact Mr. Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-2.49

DATE: 11/03/92

FROM: LEO WENSTRUP -- MANAGER - TECHNICAL SERVICES, EATON CORPORATION AXLE & BRAKE DIVISION

TO: OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

COPYEE: J. DOAN; B. PICKORNIK; B. WALTER

TITLE: BRAKE DYNAMOMETER CERTIFICATION TESTING

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-29-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO LEO WENSTRUP (A40; STD, 121)

TEXT: To Whom It may Concern,

Our company has been requested by a customer who uses our brake products in a City refuse fleet to pursue alternative lining materials. The reason for their request is the current lining formulation is very aggressive and prone to noise. This lining was chosen based on standard dynamometer certification testing as required by Section S5.4 and S6.2 of FMVSS-121 to a GAWR and rolling radius in excess of this fleets vehicle specifications.

It was decided to conduct certification testing to the exact vehicle specifications to optimize the brake performance for this customer. In reviewing the vehicles specifications, it was noted the maximum vehicle speed is governed to 45 MPH. This is below the initial speed of the fade portion of the FMVSS-121 dynamometer certification protocol in section S5.4.2.

At what speed should the fade portion of this certification be conducted in light of the fact the vehicle is incapable of meeting the test conditions?

I thank you in advance for your office's review of this enquiry and a timely response.