ID: 1761y

The Honorable Robert C. Smith
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Smith:

Thank you for your letter to Secretary Skinner on behalf of your constituent, Mrs. Maureen Andrews, of Derry. You expressed concern about the absence of safety belts for school bus passengers and about the number of persons to occupy a school bus seat. I've been asked to respond to your letter since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for administering Federal programs relating to school bus safety.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 authorizes NHTSA to issue motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles, including school buses. In 1974, Congress amended the Act to direct NHTSA to issue motor vehicle safety standards addressing various aspects of school bus safety, such as seating systems, windows and windshields, emergency exits, and fuel system integrity. Pursuant to that authority, NHTSA issued a comprehensive set of motor vehicle safety standards to make school buses, already a safe mode of transportation, even safer.

We have considered the safety belt issue in connection with our safety standard for school bus passenger crash protection, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222. Standard No. 222 requires that large school buses provide passenger crash protection through a concept called "compartmentalization." Providing compartmentalization entails improving the interior of the school bus with protective seat backs, additional seat padding, and better seat spacing and performance. These interior features are intended to keep occupants in their seating area and protect them during a crash. They ensure that a system of crash protection is provided to passengers independent of whether these passengers use safety belts.

For your information, I have enclosed a copy of our notice terminating a rulemaking proceeding to decide whether Standard No. 222 should be amended to specify certain requirements for safety belts voluntarily installed on new large school buses. We decided not to amend the standard since these belts appear to be currently installed in a manner that ensures adequate safety performance. The notice provides a thorough discussion of the safety belt issues raised by Mrs. Andrews. As explained in the notice, school buses in this country have compiled an excellent safety record. In addition to meeting compartmentalization requirements, large school buses differ from small school buses in that they have greater mass, higher seating height and high visibility to other motorists. For all of these reasons, the need for safety belts to mitigate against injuries and fatalities in large school buses is not the same as that for smaller vehicles, such as small school buses. Thus, although Standard No. 222 does require safety belts for passengers in small school buses, we conclude that a Federal requirement for the installation of safety belts in large school buses is not justified at this time.

Mrs. Andrews also asks about requirements that apply to the number of children that are allowed to sit on a bench seat. We are not authorized by Congress to regulate the number of persons that may occupy a school bus seat. However, for the purpose of ensuring that school bus manufacturers properly design their large school buses, we do specify the method for establishing the number of designated seating positions on a bench seat.

The number of seating positions on a bench seat is calculated under Standard No. 222 by dividing the bench width in inches by 15 and rounding the result to the nearest whole number. Under this formula, a 39 inch bench seat has three seating positions. (39 divided by 15 = 2.6, which is rounded to 3) For small school buses, the determination of the number of positions ensures that the bench seat would have sufficient restraint systems for the maximum number of persons that should ever occupy the seat, and that the seat provides crash protection to all these persons. For large school buses, the determination ensures that the forces applied to the seat during compliance tests are reasonable reflections of the number of occupants and of the crash forces that would be involved in a real-world crash.

It should be noted, however, that the number of seating positions derived from the Standard No. 222 formula is not meant to be an absolute measure of the seating capacity of the bus, irrespective of occupant size. We recognize that, in practice, school buses transport a tremendously wide variety of student sizes. For example, while a bus that may be capable of easily accommodating 65 preschool or elementary students, it may be capable of carrying only 43 high school students. When the bus is used to transport students of widely varying ages and sizes, the appropriate capacity of the bus will fall somewhere between those two values. The decision on how many passengers may be comfortably and safely accommodated, therefore, is a decision that must be reached by the bus operator, in light of the ages and sizes of passengers involved, and in accordance with state and local requirements.

Since NHTSA does not have the authority to regulate how States use school buses, the agency could not preclude a State from allowing the number of passengers on a bench seat to exceed the number of designated seating positions on that seat. However, we agree with Mrs. Andrews that a student should not stand while riding in a school bus. We agree further that a student should not sit on a seat unless the student can sit fully on the seat instead of sitting only partially on the seat and thus only being partially protected by the compartmentalization. We believe that Mrs. Andrews' concerns as they apply to public schools would be best addressed by her working with the local school board and state officials.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Diane K. Steed

Enclosure /ref:222 d:3/24/89

ID: 1762y

Mr. Robert H. Munson
Director, Automotive Safety Office
Environmental and Safety Engineering Staff
Ford Motor Company
The American Road
Dearborn, MI 48121

Dear Mr. Munson:

This responds to your letter in which you suggested that there are some apparently inconsistent provisions in Standard Nos. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.208) and 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR /571.209). With respect to manual belt systems installed at front outboard seating positions in a vehicle which is certified as complying with the dynamic testing requirements in Standard No. 208, you asked whether those belt systems may be equipped with load limiters, such that the belt assembly does not comply with the elongation requirements in Standard No. 209. For the reasons explained below, the answer is no.

Your letter suggested that Standard No. 209 contains two different provisions that yield inconsistent answers to this question. On the one hand, section S4.5(b) of Standard No. 209 reads as follows: "A Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly that includes a load limiter and that does not comply with the elongation requirements of this standard may be installed in motor vehicles only in conjunction with an automatic restraint system as part of a total occupant restraint system." Section S3 of Standard No. 209 defines a "load limiter" as "a seat belt assembly component or feature that controls tension on the seat belt to modulate the forces that are imparted to occupants restrained by the belt assembly during a crash." These provisions of Standard No. 209 seemingly preclude the use of a load limiter on manual belts, if the load limiter results in the belt assembly not complying with those elongation requirements, unless the seating position in which such manual belts is also equipped with an automatic restraint system. Accordingly, dynamically tested manual belts installed at seating positions that do not include any automatic restraint system could not be equipped with a load limiter, if the load limiter resulted in the belt no longer complying with the elongation requirements.

On the other hand, section S4.6 of Standard No. 209 exempts dynamically tested manual belts from the elongation requirements of the standard, as well as the webbing width and strength requirements. This exemption applies without respect to whether the dynamically tested manual belt is equipped with a load limiter. Ford suggests that this provision means that a manual belt installed at a front outboard seating position could be equipped with a load limiter, even if the load limiter resulted in the belt assembly not complying with the elongation requirements, provided that the vehicle in which the belt was installed was certified as complying with the dynamic testing requirements in Standard No. 208.

In your letter, you said that it was Ford's interpretation that the requirements of S4.6 of Standard No. 209 were meant to limit the prohibition in S4.5 of Standard No. 209, by permitting the use of load limiters that result in the belt assembly no longer complying with the elongation limits on either automatic belts or dynamically-tested manual belts. You suggested that the reasoning that caused the agency to limit the use of load limiters that result in the belt not complying with the elongation requirements to automatic belts only, in section S4.5, does not apply to dynamically tested manual belts. You quoted the following language from the notice that established S4.5:

[T]here are currently no dynamic performance requirements or injury criteria for manual belt systems used alone. There are no requirements to ensure that a load-limiting belt system would protect vehicle occupants from impacting the steering wheel, instrument panel, and windshield, which would be very likely if the belts elongated beyond the limits specified in Standard No. 209. Therefore, the elongation requirements are necessary to ensure that manual belts used as the sole restraint system will adequately restrain vehicle occupants. 46 FR 2618, at 2619; January 12, 1981.

You noted that this reasoning is now outmoded for some manual belts, because dynamic testing requirements have been established for certain manual belts. In fact, you asserted that the agency has expressly recognized this by exempting dynamically-tested manual belts from the elongation requirements of Standard No. 209. Accordingly, you believe that S4.5 of Standard No. 209 should be interpreted to permit the use of load limiters that cause the belt to no longer comply with the elongation requirements on either automatic belts or dynamically tested manual belts.

As further support for this position, your letter suggested that the agency's notices establishing dynamic testing requirements for manual belt systems show an intent to treat dynamically-tested manual belts in the same way as automatic belts for the purposes of Standard No. 209. You referred to our rule adopting dynamic testing requirements for manual safety belts in front outboard seating positions of passenger cars (51 FR 9800; March 21, 1986), the rule extending dynamic testing requirements to manual belts installed at front outboard seating positions of light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles (52 FR 44898; November 23, 1987), and the denial of petitions for reconsideration asking the agency to rescind the exemption of automatic belts and dynamically tested manual belts from the webbing width, strength, and elongation requirements of Standard No. 209 (53 FR 5579; February 25, 1988). Because of the agency's consistent expression in these three notices of its intent to treat dynamically tested manual belts in the same way automatic belts are treated under Standard No. 209, you believe that the reference in S4.5(b) of Standard No. 209 permitting load limiters on belts used "in conjunction with an automatic restraint system" should be interpreted to mean load limiters may be installed on belts used in conjunction with an automatic or dynamically tested manual restraint system.

I do not concur with your suggested interpretation. I believe that sections S4.5 and S4.6 yield inconsistent answers to your question. Section S4.6(a) exempts manual belts from elongation requirements. However, it does not speak to the consequence of installing a load limiter on a belt that does not comply with those requirements. Section S4.5(b) does speak to this issue. It says that such a belt may be used only in conjunction with an automatic restraint. To be more specific, section S4.5 expressly provides that a belt assembly that "includes a load limiter and that does not comply with the elongation requirements of this standard may be installed in a motor vehicle only in conjunction with an automatic restraint system as part of a total occupant restraint system."

I appreciate that the discussion you quoted from the 1981 notice is consistent with your argument that load limiters should be permitted on any dynamically-tested manual belt. Nevertheless, regardless of whether you believe that NHTSA intended to make or should have made such a change when in adopting dynamic testing requirements for manual belts, it is not possible to interpret the term "automatic restraint system," as used in S4.5, to mean "automatic restraint system or dynamically tested manual restraint system." An interpretation cannot add or delete requirements that are not contained in the language of the standard itself. When the agency promulgates a safety standard specifying performance requirements for vehicles or items of equipment to accomplish a particular safety purpose, that safety standard sets forth all the requirements with which the vehicles or equipment must comply. If the requirements in the safety standard do not fully address or ensure the implementation of some aspect of the underlying safety purpose, that aspect is not part of the standard. Since an interpretation cannot amend the language of a safety standard, the agency's only recourse in these situations is to undertake rulemaking to amend the language of the standard.

You asked that we treat your request for an interpretation as a petition for rulemaking if, as we have done, we concluded that your suggested interpretation was incorrect. We will notify you of our response to this petition as soon as we complete our review of it.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

/ref:208#209 d:3/28/89

ID: 17632.ztv

Mr. L. W. Camp
Director
Automotive Safety Office
Ford Motor Company
300 Town Center Drive
Dearborn, MI 48126

Dear Mr. Camp:

This is in reply to your letter of March 23, 1998, with respect to an interpretation of "permanent" fixation of vehicle headlamp aiming device (VHAD) calibration.

Paragraph S7.8.5.2(c) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 requires that "Each headlamp equipped with a VHAD that is manufactured for use on motor vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1998, shall be manufactured with its calibration permanently fixed by its manufacturer." You reference our letter to Ichikoh Industries dated June 11, 1997, in which we said that if the calibration is capable of adjustment by any means it is not "permanent." You believe that this interpretation is not in accord with the intent of the rulemaking "and if read literally creates an impracticable and unreasonable standard." You have asked for an additional clarification of the term "permanent."

In your opinion, "the intent of the term 'permanent' was to help prevent adjustment of the VHAD calibration by either service mechanics or the operator, once set by the manufacturer. This would facilitate the proper aim of headlamps equipped with VHAD devices in the field. The [Regulatory Negotiation] Committee never intended that headlamp manufacturers prevent a determined individual from deliberately altering the calibration, as this is neither reasonable nor practicable."

You believe that S7.8.5.2(c) would be satisfied if a VHAD is tamper resistant or tamper indicant. With respect to tamper resistance, you write that a system could be designed so that the calibration mechanism would not permit misadjustment by a customer using ordinary tools or by a dealer using special tools provided only by the vehicle manufacturer. Ford also believes that if a vehicle is designed so that the vehicle structure prevents access to the VHAD calibration mechanism, the calibration should be considered "permanently fixed." Ford also believes that the term "tamper indicant" can be synonymous with "permanent."

Analogizing to emission control calibration systems incorporating a cap which must be destroyed in order to defeat the manufacturer's emission control calibration setting, you believe that a similar cap design could prevent "anyone aiming a headlamp from inadvertently making an adjustment of the VHAD calibration."

I would like to explain our interpretation to Ichikoh Industries in light of the concerns you raise. We disagree that the intent of the requirement for "permanent" calibration is to help prevent adjustment of the VHAD calibration by just service mechanics or vehicle owners. The intent is to prevent adjustment by vehicle distributors and dealers as well. We also acknowledge that headlamp manufacturers cannot design a system that will absolutely prevent intentional tampering. We believe that the test for determining whether calibration is permanent is whether it is tamper-resistant both with respect to owners, service mechanics, vehicle distributors, and vehicle dealers.

The specific question asked by Ichikoh Industries was "(d)oes calibration method that vehicle owner or driver cannot calibrate using ordinary tools conform to [the requirement for permanent calibration]?" As we noted in our reply, this question implied that the calibration could be adjusted by tools that are not "ordinary tools." We stated that if the calibration is capable of adjustment by any means, it is not permanent, and that if the calibration cannot be adjusted, by ordinary tools or otherwise, then it is permanent.

I note that the question we were answering was asked in the context of calibration being performed by a vehicle owner or driver. The point we were trying to make in answering the question was that just because a vehicle owner or driver would need to obtain and use special tools to calibrate the VHAD device would not be sufficient to make the headlamp manufacturer's calibration permanent. However, this principle would not apply in a situation where special tools existed but the headlamp manufacturer reasonably believed that the tools would not available to the public, including service mechanics and vehicle distributors and dealers. This is because, in such a situation, neither a vehicle owner nor a mechanic could obtain or use such tools to calibrate the VHAD device.

We cannot provide an interpretation as to whether a particular design would be tamper-resistant outside the context of specific information about the design. We would be cautious, however, with respect to the approach of making systems "tamper indicant" as opposed to tamper-resistant. In our view, the mere fact that it would become readily apparent that a system has been calibrated would not, by itself, necessarily discourage such calibration. Thus, unless such systems could also be viewed as tamper-resistant, we would not consider them to be "permanent" in the context of the requirement at issue.

We do not agree with Ford's view that the calibration is "permanently fixed" if a vehicle is designed to prevent access to the VHAD calibration feature. Although Ichikoh asked a similar question regarding vehicle structures and aiming devices, its question was in the context of horizontal aiming systems and not calibration. We advised Ichikoh that if the horizontal aiming mechanism was not accessible for aiming the headlamp, it would be regarded as absent for purposes of meeting Standard No. 108. Ford's question is whether the VHAD calibration can be regarded as "permanently fixed" if the VHAD is inaccessible when the headlamp is installed on a vehicle. The answer is no; Standard No. 108 clearly states that the VHAD calibration is to be fixed by the headlamp manufacturer at the time the headlamp is manufactured. This means that its accessibility when the vehicle manufacturer installs the headlamp is irrelevant to the issue of whether its calibration is "permanently fixed."

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.6/18/98

ID: 1763y

Samson Helfgott, Esq.
Helfgott & Karas, P.C.
60th Floor
Empire State Building
New York, NY l0ll8-0ll0

Dear Mr. Helfgott:

This is in reply to your letter of January 12, l989, asking whether Federal regulations permit the use of an amber lamp either as original or aftermarket equipment. The lamp would be placed adjacent to the center highmounted stop lamp, but in a separate housing and wholly independent of it. It would be activated when the ignition is turned on, and deactivated whenever the stop lamps are illuminated. The purpose of the amber lamp is to improve conspicuity of the vehicle in order to lessen the braking response time of drivers in vehicles following.

Paragraph S4.1.3 of 49 CFR 571.108 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment allows a supplementary lighting device such as the amber lamp if it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. l08. The decision regarding impairment is initially that of the manufacturer of the vehicle on which the supplementary device is installed, and which the manufacturer certifies as complying with all applicable Federal safety standards. In this instance you have indicated that the wiring of the amber lamp is independent of the center lamp, and that the amber lamp is inoperative when the stop lamps are on. While your lamp does not appear to impair the effectiveness of the center lamp, you should consider whether your lamp, since it would be a steady-burning amber lamp, might confuse following drivers unused to seeing a steady burning amber lamp on the rear of a vehicle, or because of its brightness. Should the amber lamp create confusion, it may impair the effectiveness of the other rear lamps required by Standard No. l08, each of which (other than the stop lamps) would when in use operate contemporaneously with it, such as an amber turn signal lamp, or a back up lamp. As part of the vehicle manufacturer's certification to Standard No. l08, it must certify that this situation would not occur, if the lamp is to be permissible as an item of original equipment.

As an aftermarket device, the amber lamp is not regulated by Standard No. l08, but is subject to the general prohibition of l5 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A) against rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, equipment installed in accordance with a safety standard. The same considerations as discussed above should be taken into consideration when making this determination.

In addition, the use of this lamp is subject to local laws. We are not able to advise you as to these laws, and suggest that you consult for an opinion the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:3/30/89

ID: 1764y

AIR MAIL

Mr. M.J. Yoon Director In-One Development Corp. 2nd Floor, Gukdong Building 3-Ga Chungmoo-Ro Jung-Gu Seoul, Korea

Dear Mr. Yoon:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Kratzke, asking whether a vehicle you are developing for a client would be classified as a passenger car or a multipurpose passenger vehicle for the purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. I am pleased to be able to explain our law and regulations for you. I regret the delay in responding.

At the outset, I would like to make clear that the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) places the responsibility for classifying a particular vehicle in the first instance on the vehicle's manufacturer. For this reason, NHTSA does not approve or endorse any vehicle classifications before the manufacturer itself has classified a particular vehicle. NHTSA may reexamine the manufacturer's classification during the course of any enforcement actions. We will, however, tentatively state how we believe we would classify this vehicle for the purposes of our safety standards. It is important that you understand that these tentative statements of classification are based entirely on our understanding of the information presented in your letter to us. These tentative statements about the vehicle's classification may change after NHTSA has had an opportunity to examine the vehicle itself or otherwise acquire additional information about the vehicle.

With those caveats, we believe that the vehicle referenced in your letter could be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle for the purposes of our safety standards. The term "multipurpose passenger vehicle" is defined in 49 CFR /571.3 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." In your letter, you describe the vehicle as having 4-wheel drive. Additionally, the approach and departure angles and the running clearance dimensions for this vehicle show that it has high ground clearance. The combination of 4-wheel drive and high ground clearance would be considered "special features for occasional off-road operation." Hence, it appears to us that this vehicle could be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle.

You also asked for a copy of the criteria for classifying vehicles for purposes of the safety standards. All of our classification definitions are set forth in 49 CFR /571.3. The information sheet I have enclosed explains how to obtain a copy of this and all of our other regulations, and provides other information relevant to new motor vehicle manufacturers. I have also enclosed a copy of our proposal for a new vehicle classification system for the safety standards.

I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you have any further questions or need additional information.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

/ ref:571 d:3/3l/89

ID: 1765y

Mr. Melvin Krewall
Director, Transportation Section
Financial Services Division
Oklahoma State Department of Education
2500 North Lincoln Blvd
Oklahoma City, OK 73105-4599

Dear Mr. Krewall:

Thank you for your letter asking two questions about how this agency's regulations apply to vehicles used as school buses. Before I answer your specific questions, it may be helpful to discuss some background information.

Federal law regulates the manufacture and sale of new school buses. A "school bus" is defined at 49 CFR /571.3 as "a bus that is sold, or introduced in interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, but does not include a bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation." The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all new school buses. It is a violation of Federal law for any person to manufacture for sale a new school bus that does not comply with these safety standards. It is also a violation of Federal law for any person to sell as a school bus any vehicle that does not comply with all school bus safety standards. On the other hand, without violating any provision of Federal law, a school district may purchase or use a vehicle to transport school children even if the vehicle does not comply with Federal school bus regulations. This is so because the individual States have authority over the activities of a retail purchaser or user of a school bus. (Note, however, that a dealer who sold a vehicle other than a school bus to a school district with knowledge that it is intended to be used to transport school children would violate the Federal law.)

With this background, I will now address the specific questions raised in your letter. First, you asked whether a "transit coach-type vehicle" that was manufactured prior to April 1, 1977 could be used to transport students to and from school. In a subsequent telephone conversation with Joan Tilghman of my staff, you explained that you used the term "transit coach-type vehicle" to mean a bus with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of over 10,000 pounds. As explained above, Federal law does not regulate the use of vehicles as school buses. If there are any limitations on the use of vehicles as school buses in your State, those limitations arise from the laws or regulations of the State of Oklahoma. NHTSA has repeatedly advised the States of our position that the safest way to transport students is in a vehicle that is certified as complying with Federal school bus regulations. We have encouraged States and school districts to consider this fact carefully when deciding what vehicles should be used to transport students to and from school and school-related events.

Your second question asked what must be done to bring a bus with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds "into compliance as a standard Type "D" school bus." In your telephone conversation with Ms. Tilghman, you explained that Oklahoma refers to school buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds as "Type D" school buses. Please note that Federal school bus standards apply only to new school buses. Accordingly, there is no Federal requirement under NHTSA regulations that any person retrofit a used bus to make it comply with our standards for new school buses.

You may wish to know that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), a separate agency within the U.S. Department of Transportation, has proposed regulations to enhance highway safety by regulating operations of "private motor carriers of passengers." (54 Federal Register 7362, February 17, 1989, Private Carriage of Passengers.) FHWA is exploring whether it is appropriate to require retrofit of some buses owned by that category of operators to meet NHTSA vehicle safety standards. While the proposed rule does not address the operations of governmental entities, you may wish to consider the FHWA proposal or comment on it. I enclose a copy for your information, and direct your attention to the comment closing date of June 19, 1989.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Joan Tilghman of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel /ref:571#VSA d:3/3l/89

ID: 1766y

Mr. Les Schreiner
Fresia Engineering Inc.
700 E. Main Street
Suite 1618
Richmond, VA 23219

Dear Mr. Schreiner:

This responds to your letter asking whether some vehicles you plan to import into the United States are subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards set forth in 49 CFR Part 571. These vehicles consist of snow removal vehicles and aircraft towing vehicles. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our statute and regulations to you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards for new "motor vehicles" and new items of "motor vehicle equipment." Accordingly, Fresia's vehicles are subject to the safety standards only if those vehicles are "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the Safety Act. Section 102(3) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) defines a "motor vehicle" as

any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

We have interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Tractors and other agricultural equipment are not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel.

On the other hand, vehicles that use the public roads on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, utility vehicles like the Jeep are plainly motor vehicles, even though they are equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, NHTSA has treated it as a motor vehicle. Further, if a vehicle is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, NHTSA has treated the vehicle as a motor vehicle. This finding was made with respect to dune buggies, notwithstanding the manufacturers' statements that the vehicles were not intended to be used on the public roads.

NHTSA has also stated in many prior interpretation that even vehicles that will regularly be used on the public roads will not be considered "motor vehicles" for the purposes of the Safety Act, if the vehicles have a maximum attainable speed of 20 miles per hour (mph) or less and have an abnormal configuration that readily distinguishes them from other vehicles on the road.

Applying these principles to the vehicles shown in the brochures enclosed with your letter yields the following tentative conclusions.

1. The vehicles identified as "aircraft towing tractors" would not appear to be motor vehicles, assuming that these vehicles are designed and sold solely for use off the public roads.

2. The vehicles identified as "snow removal equipment" appear to fall into two categories. a. One of the categories consists of the models identified as the "F10 NF" and the "Vomero TO-TB-TA-TR," "Fresa Laterale," and "Fresa Integrale HP 200-170" models. These vehicles would not appear to be motor vehicles, because their maximum speed appears to be 20 mph or less and they have a configuration that readily distinguishes them from other vehicles on the road. b. The second category consists of all the other vehicles identified as "snow removal equipment." All the vehicles in this category look like conventional trucks with either snowplow blades or snowblowers attached to the front of the truck and appear capable of speeds greater than 20 mph. We have consistently stated that trucks with snow blowers or snowplow blades on the front end are motor vehicles, and are subject to all of our safety standards applicable to trucks. For your information, I have enclosed an April 7, 1983 letter to Mr. Takeo Shimizu on this subject.

I have identified our conclusions as tentative for several reasons. The Safety Act places the responsibility for classifying any particular vehicle in the first instance on the vehicle manufacturer. Accordingly, NHTSA does not approve or endorse any vehicle classifications before the manufacturer itself has classified the vehicle. NHTSA may reexamine the manufacturer's classifications in the course of any enforcement actions. The agency does, however, tentatively state how it believes vehicles should be classified for the purposes of the safety standards.

Additionally, the tentative opinions expressed in this letter are based on the literature enclosed with your letter. We may change the tentative opinions expressed in this letter if we have occasion to examine the vehicles themselves or otherwise acquire additional information about the vehicles.

Since you are considering importing some vehicles that would appear to be "motor vehicles" into the United States, I have enclosed some additional materials for your information. One is an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles, which highlights the relevant statutes and regulations that apply to such manufacturers and explains how the manufacturer can get copies of the relevant statutes and regulations. The other item is a booklet entitled "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Procedures." This booklet summarizes the basic requirements of our safety standards and shows which standards apply to trucks.

Your letter also indicated that your company would be interested in any "approval procedure or testing process NHTSA would administer" to get your company's vehicles on a qualified products list. NHTSA has no authority to approve or endorse any motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is itself responsible for certifying that each of its products complies with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment to ensure their compliance with the safety standards, and also investigates other alleged defects related to motor vehicle safety.

I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you need any additional information.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

/ ref:VSA d:4/3/89

ID: 17675.nhf

Mr. Jurgen Babirad
Rehabilitation Technology Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 540
Kinderhook, NY 12106

Dear Mr. Babirad:

This responds to your letter requesting permission from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to modify a 1998 Ford E150 van for a driver with quadriplegia due to a spinal cord injury. In your letter, you state that you need to replace the vehicle's original steering column with an extended steering column and install reduced effort steering and brakes to accommodate the driver's limited range of motion. You also state that your client will be driving from his wheelchair. In a phone call with Nicole Fradette of my staff, you explained that you would be installing horizontal steering in the vehicle. Specifically, you request a waiver of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208, Occupant Crash Protection, as the modifications proposed for this particular vehicle will require removing the vehicle's air bag.

While NHTSA cannot provide the specific relief you seek, because we are not authorized to grant waivers of safety standards under these circumstances, we can assure you that we will not institute enforcement proceedings against a commercial entity that modifies the steering wheel and column on a vehicle to accommodate the condition you described.

We would like to begin by explaining that NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. After the first sale of a vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122) requires businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil penalties of up to $1,100 per violation.

There is no procedure by which businesses petition for and are granted permission from NHTSA to modify a motor vehicle. Businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to the make inoperative provision of 49 U.S.C. 30122. However, in certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our requirements to provide some allowances to a business which cannot conform to our requirements when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities.

Extending the vehicle's original steering column and removing the driver's air bag could affect compliance with three standards: Standard No. 203, Impact protection for the driver from the steering control system, Standard No. 204, Steering control rearward displacement, and Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires vehicles to be equipped with specific manual and automatic restraint systems (e.g. seat belts and air bags) and to meet specified injury criteria during a test. Removing the air bag would affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208. We also note that removing the driver's seat to enable your client to drive from his wheelchair would compromise the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 207, Seating systems, which requires vehicles to be equipped with a driver's seat. However, as noted above, in situations such as yours where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition to be justified by public need. Accordingly, NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a business that modifies the steering column, air bag, and driver's seat to accommodate the condition you describe.

We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made. In addition, you should consult with the manufacturer to determine how to disarm the air bag. The manufacturer should be able to provide information on how the modification can be safely performed. We are enclosing a warning label stating that the air bag has been deactivated. For the safety of everyone who may ride in the vehicle, we ask that you affix this label on the sun visor above the deactivated air bag. Finally, if the vehicle is sold, we urge the owner to advise the purchaser that the vehicle has been modified and consider reinstalling the removed safety equipment if appropriate.

You may be interested in knowing that the agency is working on a proposal to regulate the aftermarket modification of vehicles for persons with disabilities by setting out exemptions from the make inoperative prohibition for certain standards. In place of the agency's current approach where each request for exemption from the make inoperative prohibition is reviewed case-by-case, this proposal would give clear guidance to modifiers about principles to follow when considering vehicle modifications to accommodate someone's disabilities. We intend to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking shortly.

If you have other questions or require additional information, please contact Nicole Fradette of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
Warning Label
Ref:VSA
d.5/1/98

ID: 17677-1.pja

Lance Tunick, Esq.
Vehicle Services Consulting, Inc.
P. O. Box 23078
Santa Fe, NM 87502

Dear Mr. Tunick:

This responds to your April 3, 1998, request for reconsideration of our March 31, 1998, interpretation whether Item 4A Glazing, "Rigid Plastic for Use in Side Windows," specified in Standard No. 205, Glazing materials, is permitted in the rear window that is behind a retractable roll bar in a convertible passenger car. Based on the materials you originally sent us, we concluded that rigid plastic glazing was not permitted in that location. However, based on the materials and the issues you raised in your April 3 letter, as well as a videotape and photographs you submitted on July 24, we have concluded that the glazing should be permitted.

As we discussed in our original letter, the relevant question is whether the rear window of the vehicle is part of the convertible top. This is because S5.1.2.11(a)(1) of Standard No. 205 permits item 4A rigid plastic glazing in "[a]ll areas in which Item 4 safety glazing may be used." ANSI Z-26.1a-1980 (incorporated by reference in Standard No. 205) permits item 4 glazing in "[t]he rear windows of convertible passenger car tops."

When we considered whether the window could be considered the rear window of a convertible passenger car top, we based our decision on the materials you submitted. Your original letter attached three color copies of photographs showing the vehicle. The rear window we are discussing retracts automatically behind the rear seats. The one photograph that showed a side view of the window appeared to show the rear window in a partially retracted position on the outside of a broad rollbar. It appeared to be unconnected to the rollbar, with the top edge of the window partially down while the rollbar was fully deployed. Based on this, our March 31 letter concluded that, although your vehicle was a convertible, "the glazing in the vehicle is separate from (not of the same piece as) the convertible top, and therefore is not a rear window of a convertible passenger car top."

The videotape and photographs you sent us in your April 3 letter give a different impression. The newer materials show that the rear window retracts as one unit with the rollbar.⁽¹⁾

When the switch is depressed, the rollbar and window pivot together and drop down behind the rear seats. The window is connected to the rollbar sufficiently that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) considers them to be one unit.

The rollbar is part of the convertible top. The top of the rollbar, when deployed, presents a horizontal exterior surface several inches wide directly over the rear seat passengers. It supports the rear edge of a removeable roof panel (another part of the top) above the front seat occupants. The rear window is physically connected to a part of the top, raises and lowers with the top like other convertibles, and depends on the position of the top for its position on the vehicle. Based on the new materials you have sent us, NHTSA considers the rear window to be part of a convertible passenger car top. Therefore, the rear window can be made of Item 4A rigid plastic glazing.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions about this letter, please contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:205
d.9/16/98

1. What appeared in the original photograph to be the top edge of a partially retracted rear window was actually one image in a timed exposure of the front edge of the rollbar retracting with the window.

ID: 17678.drn

Greg Balmer, Esq.
Staff Counsel
YMCA of the USA
101 North Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606

Dear Mr. Balmer:

This responds to your letter concerning dealers' refusals to sell 15-passenger vans to YMCAs that drop off and pick up school children from school. You ask for clarification of the circumstances when buses are considered "school buses" under Federal law. As explained below, a new bus sold or leased to a YMCA that will use the bus on a significant basis to transport school children to or from school is a "school bus" and must meet Federal motor vehicle safety standards for school buses.

Your letter states the following:

Many YMCAs offer child care and after-school programs for school-aged children and use passenger vans to either drop off or pick up the children from school. Dealers are classifying this use as one of a school bus, and are refusing to sell or lease passenger vans to YMCAs, despite the fact that YMCAs are not schools and that YMCA child care and after-school programs are, under traditional definitions, primarily custodial, and not educational, in nature.

Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112 requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable standards. Under our regulations, a "bus" is any vehicle, including a van, that has a seating capacity of 11 persons or more. Our statute defines a "school bus" as any bus which is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events (emphasis added). 49 U.S.C. 30125. A 15-passenger van that is likely to be used significantly to transport students is a "school bus."

If a dealer sells or leases (e.g., leases on a regular or long-term basis), a new bus to transport students, the vehicle is a "school bus" and must meet the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA's) school bus standards. Conventional 15-passenger vans are not certified as doing so, and thus cannot be sold or leased, as new vehicles, to carry students on a regular basis.

As you are aware, in an interpretation letter of November 20, 1978, to DeKalb Rental/Leasing, Inc. (copy enclosed), NHTSA determined that YMCAs are not schools. In instances where a new bus purchased by a YMCA is not used for transportation "to or from school," or a school-related event (e.g., if the bus will be used only for YMCA summer camps, or YMCA weekend activities where there is no transportation to or from school), a dealer would not be required to sell a school bus.

However, the situation raised in your letter is different. The pertinent issue is not whether the YMCA is a school, but whether the bus will be "significantly" used to transport school children "to or from" school (as described in Section 30125). If the bus will be used for such purpose, a school bus must be sold, regardless of whether such transportation is provided by a "school," a day care facility, or any other entity.

We find it appropriate to address whether buses are "used significantly" to transport students on a case-by-case basis, focusing on the intended use of the vehicle. Your letter states that "[m]any YMCAs offer child care and after-school programs for school-aged children and use passenger vans to either drop off or pick up the children from school." Children attend school five days a week. After-school programs are presumably also offered five days a week. YMCA buses are therefore presumably providing school children with transportation to or from school five days a week or nearly at that rate. NHTSA considers such recurring and consistent use of the YMCA buses to transport students "to or from school" (even if the same students are not transported each day), to constitute a "significant" use of the vehicle. Therefore, it is our position that, when selling or leasing new buses to any child care facility (including YMCAs) for the purpose of taking students to or picking students up from school, dealers must sell or lease buses that meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to "school buses."⁽¹⁾

NHTSA believes that school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country, and therefore strongly recommends that all buses that are used to transport school children be certified as meeting NHTSA's school bus safety standards. Further, using 15-passenger vans that do not meet the school bus standards to transport students could result in increased liability in the event of a crash. You may want to check with state laws governing private tort liability and consult with your insurance carriers for further information on this issue.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
d.7/17/98
ref:VSA#571.3 "school bus only"

1. As you may be aware, in interpretation letters of May 29, 1991 and September 6, 1991 to Ms. Vel McCaslin, Director of Grace After School, an after school care program, NHTSA stated that buses used to transport children to Ms. McCaslin's program would be "school buses" only if the program is a "school or school-related event." The September 1991 letter indicated that the program picks up children from three area schools and brings them to the church on a "daily" basis. These letters concluded that Grace After School did not appear to be a "school," that the program was not a "school-related event" and that NHTSA's school bus requirements thus did not apply. NHTSA has recently reexamined the two letters to Ms. McCaslin. Upon reconsideration, we have decided that the letters to Ms. McCaslin did not focus enough on the fact that the buses were being used to transport school children "from school," as specified in 49 U.S.C. 30125. Therefore, to the extent the May 29, 1991 and September 6, 1991 letters to Ms. McCaslin are inconsistent with this letter, they have been superceded.