ID: 1985-01.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/30/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Barry Merten, Senior Product Development Engineer, Fisher-Price Diversified Products

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Barry Merten Senior Product Development Engineer Fisher-Price Diversified Products 636 Girard Avenue East Aurora, NY 14052-1885

This responds to your letter to Mr. Oesch of my staff and to Mr. Radovich of our Rulemaking division, seeking interpretations of the requirements of Standard No. 213, Child restraint systems (49 CFR S571.213). Specifically, you stated that your company plans to produce a new design of child restraint, which incorporates automatic belt retractors for the shoulder belts. These belts are permanently attached to a semi-rigid front restraining shield, which has a buckle built onto the bottom that attaches onto a tongue rigidly fixed within the seating surface. After connecting the buckle on the shield to the tongue,the parent must then push the shield toward the child so that it fits snugly. This automatically takes in the slack in the belts.

You asked two questions about the application of Standard No. 213 to this design of child restraint. The first concerned section S8.1.2.4, which specifies that, prior to testing, the belts on a child restraint shall be adjusted so that there is 1/4 inch of slack. The automatic belt retractors in your design may leave up to 3/4 inch of slack in the belts. You asked if the 1/4 inch slack requirement effectively prohibits the use of belts with an automatic retractor. It does not.

At the time Standard No. 213 took effect, all belts on child restraint systems then on the market were manually adjustable. Hence, they could be adjusted to introduce any amount of slack desired. To ensure that all child restraints would be tested under identical conditions, a provision was added to Standard No. 213 specifying the precise amount of slack which should be present. This specification of test conditions was not intended to establish a requirement that all belt systems on child restraints be manually adjustable, so that the specified amount of slack could be introduced. Instead, it was intended to function as an impartial specification for all belt systems, whether or not they were manually adjustable.

Section S6.1.2.4 sets forth the amount of slack to which all belt systems on child restraints should be adjusted before running the sled test. However, systems which are not manually adjustable may be tested with more slack present, since the greater slack would make the test more severe. No belt system, whether or not manually adjustable, can be tested with less than the specified 1/4 inch of slack, since that would make the test less severe for child restraints equipped with such a belt system. Section S6.1.2.4 is not intended to favor any particular type of belt system. Accordingly, you may test your child restraint with more than 1/4 inch of slack present in the belts.

The second question you asked was whether the language specified in section S5.5.2.(h) could be slightly modified for use on the labels to be affixed to your child restraints. That section requires that the following language appear on the label: "Snugly adjust the belts provided with this child restraint against your child." Since the belts on your child restraint will not be manually adjustable, you would like to modify the language to read: "Snugly adjust the shield provided with this restraint against your child and test that the belts are locked."

Your proposed modification would ensure that the directions, which again were written with manually adjustable belts in mind, contained the appropriate modifications for belts with automatic retractors. Your proposed modification does not make any substansive change in the meaning of the directions specified for the label. Since the proposed change is a minor variation intended to clarify the language of the instructions for child restraints where the belts themselves are not manually adjustable, it is permitted.

Should you have any further questions or need further information on this subject, please contact Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

NOA-30:SKratzke:426-2992:cyb:12/26/84 NOA-30:Subj/Chron NOA-30-:SKratzke NRM-01 NFF-01 Interps. Std. 213 Redbook OCC 1514 and 1534

Vladislav Radovich Office of Vehicle Safety Standards National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Radovich,

A belated thank you for your time and help during our visit last August 15 to discuss the Fisher-Price Car Seat under development. Your comments were very helpful and we are now preparing for production of, we feel, the most convenient and one of the safest Car Seats available.

We do have several requests for you and your legal department. We would like a ruling on the application of Standard 213 Test Procedure S6.1.2.4 specifying snugly adjusted belts. Our means of restraining the child in the Car Seat consists of a semi-rigid T-shaped shield with a buckle built into the bottom that attaches onto a tongue rigidly fixed within the sitting surface. Two shoulder belts emerge from the top of the shield and run through slots in the seat back where they attach non-adjustably to a connector bar. This bar is sewn into a single belt running up the back from an automatic locking set belt retractor mounted under the sitting surface.

The retractor applies a constant spring tension to the belt at all times. A mechanical override, activated when the buckle is detached from the tongue, allows the belt to pay out. Thus, the user can pull an excess length of shoulder strap while installing or removing a child. With the buckle attached to the tongue, the retractor automatically locks so that no belt can be pulled out, only slack taken up.

At this point, the semi-rigid shield stands somewhat clear of the child, resisting the pull of the retractor winding spring. The instructions will direct the user to "push the shield toward th child for a snug but comfortable fit and the belt slack will be taken up." Because of the racheting mechanism in the retractor, slack is taken up in increments of one-half to three quarters of an inch. Therefore, there may be up to 3/4 of an inch of slack in the belt system that cannot be taken out. Although we expect this condition to meet Standard 213 requirements, it precludes the application of the procedure specifying snugly adjusted belts. Barbara Kelleher of Calspan Corporation has requested this ruling for the compliance tests they will be running.

Also, since the use of a retractor is not addressed in Standard 213, we would appreciate a ruling or statement regarding the acceptability of our approach. We have chosen the automatic locking approach because we believe it offers the highest degree of safety. Will you please refer these requests to your legal department for us?

Also, during Dave Campbell's and my visit with you last August to review the product, the acceptability of a recess in the upper back surface was questioned. We feel there was agreement during the meeting that the protrusion limitation (S5.2.4) does not apply. In a telephone conversation with you a few days later, it was agreed that the area is in compliance with S5.2.2.1 since the system has a continuous back support surface greater than 85 square inches below the recess in question. I believe these were the only points in question.

Sincerely,

FISHER-PRICE DIVERSIFIED PRODUCTS

Barry Merten Sr. Product Development Engineer /mam

ID: 1985-01.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/01/85 EST

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Harleigh Ewell, Esq. -- Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Harleigh Ewell, Esq. Office of the General Counsel U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission Washington, D.C. 20207

This responds to your letter asking whether a certain product would be considered an item of "motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1391 (4)). The product is a "trouble light" which can be plugged into either a standard 120 volt outlet or a vehicle's cigarette lighter. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not consider this product to be an item of motor vehicle equipment.

The relevant language in section 102(4) specifies that any "accessory or addition to the motor vehicle" is considered an item of motor vehicle equipment. In previous interpretations of the section, NHTSA has considered a product to be an accessory if it has no ostensible purpose other than use with a motor vehicle and is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of the motor vehicle. The product with which you are concerned does not satisfy the first part of this test, since it is designed to be used both in the motor vehicle and in the home. Therefore, NHTSA does not consider this product to be an item of motor vehicle equipment.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

U.S. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20207

December 11, 1984

Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Our staff has become aware of a possible defect in a "trouble light" that makes provision for use either plugged in to a standard 120 V socket or in to a car's cigarette lighter. The problem is that while the light is plugged in to the 120V socket, contact with the exposed lighter plug could result in exposure to either 60V or 120V, depending on whether the fluorescent light is turned on.

As you probably know, the Consumer Product Safety Act, at 15 U.S.C. S 2052(a)(1)(C), excludes "motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment" from the definition of "consumer products" that the CPSC can address. Therefore, in order to help us determine whether CPSC has authority to take action with respect to this product, we would like to know NHTSA's views on whether the trouble light described above could be considered an item of "motor vehicle equipment" as defined by section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1391(4).

Thank you for your cooperation. Please contact me if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Harleigh Ewell Attorney

ID: 1985-01.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/04/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Keith A. Sharp, Esq. Lillick, McHose & Charles

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Keith A. Sharp, Esq. Lillick, McHose & Charles 707 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90017

Dear Mr. Sharp:

This responds to your recent letter to Betsy Harrison of this office concerning the importation of unassembled components for bus chassis from Japan. According to the information in your letter, your client, Isuzu Truck of America, Inc. (IST), is considering importing these unassembled components from Isuzu Motors Limited in japan, and assembling them into bus chassis in the United States. Then, IST would sell the bus chassis to companies which would install bodies on the chassis.

You ask whether your client, IST, would be responsible for assigning a vehicle identification number (VIN) to the bus chassis, which are produced using the imported components. Based on the information given, the answer is yes. Under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number--Basic Requirements, IST would be considered the manufacturer of an incomplete vehicle, because IST would be assembling a frame and chassis structure which would require substantial additional manufacturing operations before it becomes a completed vehicle.

You also state that U.S. Customs may not release the unassembled bus chassis components to IST at the port of entry unless the components bear vehicle identification numbers. We are not aware of any customs regulation which requires a VIN to be affixed to unassembled chassis components.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

December 4, 1984 Betsy Harrison, Esq. Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Re: Vehicle Identification Numbers

Dear Ms. Harrison:

We are attorneys for Isuzu Truck of America, Inc. ("IST"). IST is the distributor of trucks and buses manufactured by Isuzu Motors Limited, a Japanese corporation, in the United States. IST is contemplating importing into the United States unassembled components for bus chassis. IST would assemble the components into bus chassis which would then be sold by IST to companies which would install bodies on the chassis and resell them to end-users.

Your office has previously advised us, on an informal basis, that IST would be the party responsible for placing the required vehicle identification numbers on each bus chassis. We request that you now confirm your opinion in writing. We note that IST is concerned that U.S. Customs may not release the bus chassis components to IST at the port of entry unless the components bear vehicle identifi-cation numbers. We would appreciate your comments on the existence of such a problem.

If you have any questions regarding the foregoing, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.

Very truly yours,

LILLICK McHOSE & CHARLES

By:

Keith A. Sharp

KAS:slm

cc: Art Sato Candy Watson

ID: 1985-01.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/04/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. John L. O'Connell Department of Motor Vehicles State of Connecticut

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. John L. O'Connell Department of Motor Vehicles State of Connecticut State Street Wethersfield, Connecticut 06109

This responds to your October 15, 1984 letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) asking about an emergency door which is installed on a school bus in addition to the emergency exits required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release.

Your first question asked whether this additional emergency exit is required to comply with Standard No. 217. In particular, you asked about the labeling requirements. FMVSS No. 217 requires that additional exits on school buses which are intended as emergency exits must comply with the emergency exit requirements applicable to exits in buses other than school buses. These additional emergency exits would be required to be labeled in accordance with the requirements for exits in non-school buses.

Your second question asked whether the door may be sealed shut. You also asked whether sealing the door would have any effect on the compliance of the bus with FMVSS No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength.

The answer to this question depends on who seals the door, and when this work is performed. As you probably know, NHTSA does not have the authority to prohibit an owner, such as a school, from modifying its own vehicle. A school may modify its own vehicle in any manner without assuring that the vehicle remains in compliance with motor vehicle safety standards. Of course, it may be more difficult to insure a vehicle which does not conform to the safety standards. The school can also expose itself to increased liability in the event that one of their noncomplying vehicles is involved in an accident.

After the vehicle is sold to its first purchaser, manufacturers, dealers, distributors or repair businesses are prohibited from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. The additional door could be sealed by a manufacturer or repair-type business as long as there were sufficient other emergency exits available on the vehicle so that it remains in compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 217. Moreover, the door were sealed after the vehicle's first sale, FMVSS No. 221 would not be a factor. This is because doors are not considered "body panel joints" subject to the requirements of the standard. Since the additional door was not regulated by Standard No. 221, there would be no rendering inoperative of the compliance of the door with that standard.

If you decide to Seal the emergency exit shut, we would encourage you to remove the labels to avoid possible confusion in the event of an accident.

If the door was made inoperable prior to the vehicle's first sale, FMVSS No. 221 would be a factor. This is because the person sealing the door is an "alterer," and must attach a label indicating compliance of the altered vehicle with the standards. When the door is sealed, it becomes part of the bus wall structure. As such, any joints on the door that would fall within the ambit of Standard No. 221 would be required to comply with that standard. The alterer would also be required to remove any labels and operating instructions from the exit which was sealed, since labels indicating that a door can be used as an emergency exit when in fact the door is inoperative would not conform to Standard No. 217.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

October 15, 1984

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This correspondence relates to Thomas Built Buses, Inc., who manufacture a school bus with a right side emergency door, in addition to the emergency exits required by FMVSS No. 217.

If a school bus is manufactured in conformance with the emergency exit requirements of FMVSS No. 217, and additionally, a right side emergency exit is provided. must that additional exit be in compliance with all the requirements of FMVSS, including markings?

If it does not have to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 217, may it be sealed shut? If yes, would a sealed door have any significant effect on the school bus's meeting the requirements of FMVSS No. 221 for School Bus Body Joint Strength?

Your response to these questions will be a valuable assistance to us in guiding our inspection personnel.

Very truly yours

John L. O'Connell Public Transportation Administrator

JLO:ECP/k

cc: Howard Smith Bus Sales Ron Marion, Thomas Built Buses

ID: 1985-01.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/06/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Binichi Doi NSK Representative Office

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Binichi Doi NSK Representative Office 3861 Research Park Drive P.O. Box 1507 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106

This responds to your letter of December 21, 1984, concerning several questions about Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies.

In all of your questions, you in essence asked whether automatic safety belts are required to meet the marking requirements of section 4.1(j) of Standard No. 209. The answer is that automatic belts complying with the frontal crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 are not required to meet the marking requirements of Standard No. 209.

As explained in detail in the enclosed agency interpretation letter of August 7, 1981, to Volkswagen, automatic safety belts that meet the perpendicular frontal crash protection requirements of section S5.1 of Standard No. 208 are only required to meet the requirements of Standard No. 209 that are incorporated by reference in section S7.1 of Standard No. 208. Section S7.1 of Standard No. 208 only incorporates provisions directly related to retractor performance and does not incorporate the marking requirements of S4.1(j) of Standard No. 209.

If you have further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

December 21, 1984 NHTSA Room 5219 400 7th Street S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20590 Mr. Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel Interpretation of Marking Requirement for Passive Seat Belts

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I am writing this request for NHTSA's opinion on this subject on behalf of NSK-Warner Co. Ltd. (NWC) of Japan, which is a producer of automotive seat belts and is one of NSK's subsidiaries.

Question 1) Are the passive seat belts required to have the identification marking label sewn or glued on the belt similar to the active seat belts, for ever-ready viewing of such? or is ever-ready viewing of the identification label not required although the I.D. label must be on the seat belt?

2) Is it sufficient to have the identification marking on components other than the belt, such as the retractor or buckle frame, where ever-ready viewing of such could not be practical?

3) Are there other interpretations of the marking requirement than the above?

Background information:

1) NWC needs to know NHTSA's interpretation on the above subject matter for planning the production of its passive seat belts which would be somewhat similar in external appearance to the Toyota Cressida type or the diagonal belt of the VW Rabbit.

2) NWS's customer auto-manufacturers are indicating their dislike far sewing the identification label onto the belt webbing.

3) The probable alternate method would be gluing the I.D. seal label or mark-stamping it onto the retractor frame or the mounting bracket. In this case, the retractor or bracket might be hidden under some form of cover or be located in the center console box, for which ever-ready viewing of such I.D. marking is not practical.

Your kind attention to this request for NHTSA's interpretation of the marking requirement for passive seat belts would be appreciated by us.

Very truly yours,

Binichi Doi NSK Representative

BD/lgc

ID: 1985-01.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/07/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Rod L. Stafford Fryford Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter requesting information on which of the agency's regulations would apply to a new product you are considering. You described the product as a "hammock-like seat which, unrolled and fastened into the rear bed of any pickup truck, forms a comfortable passenger seat which may be easily stowed inside the truck cab." You stated that you plan to sell your product as an item of aftermarket equipment and asked about the application of our regulations to your product.

If your product is sold as an item of aftermarket equipment to be installed by a vehicle owner, it would not be required to comply with Standards Nos. 207, 208, 209, 210, and 302. We were pleased to learn that you have nevertheless voluntarily designed your product to conform to those standards.

As a manufacturer of an item of motor vehicle equipment, you do have a responsibility under section 151 et seq. of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to conduct a notification and remedy campaign if you or the agency determines that your product contains a safety-related defect or does not comply with an applicable standard. A copy of the Act is enclosed.

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

ENC.

2ND SEAT

OCC 0014

Office of the Chief Council National Traffic & Highway Safety Administration

Attn: William Smith

Mr. Smith,

We are a manufacturer of an aftermarket product with the trade name "2nd Seat," and this letter regards the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Standards to our product.

The "2nd Seat" is essentially a hammock-like seat which, when unrolled and fastened into the rear bed of any pickup truck, forms a comfortable passenger seat which may be easily stowed inside the truck cab. The seat is designed to be installed in a rearward-facing attitude, and the rider position is recumbent with an upper body angle which is reclined more than 45 degrees from the vertical axis. The width of the bench thus formed is 45".

We have designed our product to conform to the requirements set forth in Secs. 207 thru 210 of the motor vehicle codes, and the Sec. 302 which refers to Fire Retardant standards. We have performed an engineering study which indicates that our product exceeds the requirements for both the strength of the seat body, and the safety restraint system. However, we understand that the standards are not specifically directed at the aftermarket and that compliance on our part may therefore be subject to a specific ruling from your Department.

If you require more detailed information about the "2nd Seat" or if there is a customary posture which the Administration generally assumes in such cases, please inform us at your earliest convenience.

Rod L. Stafford Fryford Corporation

ID: 1985-01.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/02/85

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: ROGER HAGIE -- MANAGER, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS KAWASAKI MOTORS CORP., U.S.A.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 10/19/84 FROM ROGER HAGIE TO NHTSA, REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION FMVSS 108; OCC 1383

TEXT: Dear Mr. Hagie:

This is in response to your letter of October 19, 1984, asking for an.. interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it relates to motorcycle headlighting systems.

Referencing our letter of July 24, 1984, to Koito in which we confirmed that a motorcycle could be equipped with two headlamps, side by side, each meeting the requirements of SAE J584, you have asked "Does the 75,000 limit (as specified by SAE J584) apply to each lamp individually, or must the total output of both lamps be limited to 75,000 cd?"

SAE J584 states in pertinent part that "The beam or beams from a single lamp shall meet the candle power specifications listed in" Table 1. This table established a maximum of 75,000 candela "anywhere" for a single lamp. This means that the limit applies to each lamp individually under the Koito interpretation.

You have further stated that Kawasaki is considering a headlamp design that consists of two reflectors, each with its own dual-filament bulb, each capable of independent aim installed in a single housing, and behind a single lens. You have asked if such a design is acceptable for a motor-cycle, and whether both reflectors would have to be independently aimable or could the aiming be accomplished by moving the whole lamp assembly.

Your contemplated design is acceptable for motorcycles; SAE J584 refers to a "light source or sources" (see "At-Focus Tests"). However, a two-bulb design in a single housing would have to be designed to meet J584's requirements for a single headlamp including maximum output of 75,000 cd. Further, Standard No. 108 permits independently aimable reflectors, or aim by moving the entire assembly whichever you prefer. All that is required is that the unit meet SAE J566 Headlamp Mountings, January 1960.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

ID: 1985-01.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/12/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Addressee not given

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 30, 1984, (not received until October 17, 1984) with respect to questions of compliance of lighting and bumper requirements on a vehicle equipped with a variable height control system.

Standard No. 108 requires that the center of a headlamp lens be not less than 22 inches from the road surface. You stated that this minimum might not be met with respect to certain headlamp configurations when the ignition is off, and the hydraulic pressure in the height control system relaxes, a period of approximately three hours. You believe that compliance with the mounting height requirement should be judged "with the ignition switch in only the 'on' position," the apparent point at which the height control system begins to operate.

We believe that the minimum height requirement should be met for any lamp at any time in which it is operated for its intended purpose. Since vehicles at rest do not require use of headlamps, the minimum height would be measured at the point after the ignition is on and when the car begins to travel (your letter implies that the time lag between turning on the ignition and restoration of a complying mounting height is a matter of seconds). On the other hand, the hazard warning signal lamps are frequently operated when the vehicle is stopped, and therefore the minimum mounting height of turn signal lamps, through which they operate, must be met with the ignition off, even if the system requires three hours to deplete itself and lower the vehicle to its minimum height.

We also call to your attention paragraph S4.1.3 which forbids the installation of motor vehicle equipment which impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard, and ask that you consider whether a height control system would change vehicle height, pitch, roll, etc., in response to some external or internal condition, in a manner which would affect the performance of headlamps and other lighting equipment.

You have also asked, in essence, which conditions of operation of the system are appropriate for the pendulum and barrier impact tests of the bumper standard, 49 CFR Part 581. Under Sec. 581.5(c), the suspension system is to remain in adjustment and operate in the normal manner; under Sec. 581.6(c) the engine is operating at idling speed. In our opinion, the vehicle is required to meet the pendulum test of Part 581 in any vehicle use scenario in which the system operates, and the barrier test of Part 581 when the engine is idling.

Finally, you requested confidentiality for all information submitted which pertains to the variable height control system. After carefully reviewing the documents, I have determined that your request should be granted. The release of these documents could cause substantial injury to the competitive position of your company. Therefore, I am withholding from the public your letter which contains a detailed description of the variable height control system currently under consideration. I am also deleting all references to the company name. I will instruct all agency personnel having access to this information to accord it confidential treatment.

I hope that this answers your questions.

ID: 1985-01.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/12/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Dave Durenberger

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your recent letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Pius Lacher, the Superintendent of Schools in Mora, Minnesota. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply.

As I understand Mr. Lacher's letter, the Mora public schools would like to use 12 and 15 passenger vans to transport children to and from extra-curricular activities. Mr. Lacher believes that he is restricted by our Federal regulations to using only large, 72-passenger buses for this purpose. He urges a change in the regulations.

I appreciate this opportunity to clarify our regulations. In this letter, I would like to explain how our regulations might affect Mora's choice of buses. Before I begin, let me explain that our regulations define a "bus" as a motor vehicle designed to carry 10 or more passengers. Our regulations require manufacturers and dealers to certify that new buses comply with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards, including our school bus safety standards, when these vehicles are sold to schools.

Our agency has two sets of regulations, issued under different Acts of Congress, that could affect Mora's choice of buses. The first of these, the motor vehicle safety standards issued under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-563; 15 U.S.C. 1381-1426) apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. In a 1974 amendment to the Act, Congress expressly directed us to issue standards on specific aspects on school bus safety, including emergency exits, seating systems, and windows and windshields. The standards we issued became effective April 1, 1977, and apply to each school bus manufactured after that date. If Mora plans to buy a new bus for use as an activity bus, the manufacturer must certify that the bus complies with the motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses. New conventional 12 or 15 passenger vans that are not manufactured to comply with these standards could not be sold for use as school buses.

The Vehicle Safety Act does not prohibit Mora from using vehicles that carry more than 10 persons. There might, however, be impediments under Minnesota State law. We administer a set of guidelines for state highway safety programs under the authority of the Highway Safety Act (Public Law 89-564; 23 U.S.C. 401-408). These guidelines, called Highway Safety Program

Standards, cover a wide range of subjects, including school buses. Individual states have chosen to adopt some or all of the guidelines as their own policies governing their highway safety programs. Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17 (HSPS 17), specifies that a bus used to transport 16 or less students must either be identified with the words "School Bus" and comply with the standard's requirements for color, mirrors and signal lamps, or be devoid of all of these characteristics. As it happens, however, a bus sold for use as a school bus is required by the Vehicle Safety Act to have warning lights and mirrors (as well as many other safety features). Because it must have this equipment, a 12 or 15 passenger bus in a State whose law fully incorporates HSPS 17 would have to be painted and signed as a school bus. For a state that has adopted this standard as its own policy, these specifications apply to activity buses as well as to the buses used for daily transportation.

I want to stress that HSPS 17 will affect Mora only if Minnesota has adopted it and if Minnesota accepts our view that the specifications apply to activity buses. If Minnesota chooses to exempt activity buses from being painted, signed, and equipped as school buses, we might disagree with the wisdom of its decision but we would not insist on compliance with HSPS 17 to the extent of taking action against the State. Congress has given us discretion under the Highway Safety Act not to insist that a State comply with every requirement of the highway safety standards. While we have stressed the importance of a strong pupil transportation program, consistent with HSPS 17, we have not insisted that the States comply with every feature of the standard.

Having said this, however, I will conclude by restating the importance that our agency attaches to the use of safe buses to transport children. It remains the agency's position that a yellow school bus meeting the motor vehicle safety standards is the safest means of transportation for school children. In the years since buses began to be manufactured to the school bus safety standards, there has been a marked improvement in school bus safety. Mora should consider these safety features when the school district decides to buy their school vehicles.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

ENC: Constituent's Correspondence

UNITED STATES SENATE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510

January 15, 1985

Timothy Cole Office of Congressional Affairs U.S. Department of Transportation

Dear Sir:

The attached communication is submitted for your consideration; and, I wish to ask that the request made therein be complied with, if possible.

I would appreciate your looking into this matter and sharing with me your findings. In responding to me, please return the attached correspondence along with your reply in duplicate to the attention of my assistant: Christopher Barton, (phone 224-9482), c/o United States Senate, SR 375, Washington, D.C. 20510.

With appreciation for your assistance and cooperation, I am, Dave Durenberger United States Senator

ENC.

MORA PUBLIC SCHOOLS

MORA, MINNESOTA 53051

January 7, 1985

The Honorable David Durenburger

United States Senator

Dear Senator:

School Administrators have been frustrated for several years with the Department of Transportation rule that prohibits the use by schools to transport students to any event unless that vehicle meets the definition of a school bus or carries ten passengers or less.

Several Day Care Centers, Senior Citizens Centers, residential facilities for the retarded, airport limousine services, etc., use twelve and fifteen-passenger vans, and if these vehicles are unsafe for school use, we wonder why they are safe for all other public agencies of the private sector.

For most of us, this means using a 72-passenger bus and paying a licensed bus driver for driving time and waiting time, while students participate in a tennis or swimming match. In the past, a team coach could drive a twelve or fifteen-passenger van, saving the school district precious dollars which are always in tight supply for these types of non-revenue activities.

We solicit your help in finding the source of this rule and its possible elimination.

Pius J. Lacher, Ed. D. Superintendent of Schools

ID: 1985-01.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/12/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Phyllis A. Sirine -- Adminis

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 6/28/85 letter from Jeffrey R. Miller to Joseph C. Bright, Jr.

TEXT:

Ms. Phyllis A. Sirine Administrative Secretary St. Peter's School 319 Lombard Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19147

This responds to your letter to me concerning your use of 13 and 15 passenger vans to transport students to and from extracurricular activities. In a telephone call on January 30, 1985 Mr. John Womack explained how our school bus regulations affect your school's choice of buses. This letter follows up on that conversation and confirms Mr. Womack's discussion of our regulations.

As I understand it, Pennsylvania has recently amended its law to define "bus" to mean "a motor vehicle designed for carrying more than ten persons, including the driver." The old definition had excluded the driver. In effect, a van designed to carry more than ten persons is now a "bus" under Pennsylvania law. To transport students in a van of that size, a school would need to conform the van to the State's requirements for school buses.

The recent change in Pennsylvania law does not in any way affect how our regulations apply to your 13 and 15 passenger vans. Your vehicles have always been classified as buses under Federal law, since under our regulations a bus is defined as a motor vehicle designed for carrying more than ten persons. Further, your vehicles are "school buses" as that term is defined in the Vehicle Safety Act. The basic test under the Vehicle Safety Act is whether, as determined at the time of its first sale, a bus would be used to transport school children to or from school or related events. It is not relevant that the school uses the vehicles only occasionally. When the buses were sold to your school, it should have been clear to the dealer or manufacturer that the vehicles would be used as school buses.

It appears that St. Peter's purchase of new vans for the transportation of students raises questions of compliance with Federal law by the dealers who sold you the vans. The Vehicle Safety Act required the dealer or manufacturer to sell vehicles which were certified as meeting all applicable motor vehicle safety standards. With respect to your future purchases of new vehicles, I urge you to keep in mind that the dealers are obligated to sell you vehicles that meet the school bus safety standards. They should know that they are at risk if they sell nonconforming vehicles.

The Vehicle Safety Act does not prohibit you from operating the 13 and 15 passenger vans. There might, however, be impediments under Pennsylvania State law. We administer a set of guidelines for state highway safety programs under the authority of the Highway Safety Act (Public Law 89-564). These guidelines, called Highway Safety Program Standards, cover a wide range of subjects, including school buses. Individual states have chosen to adopt some or all of the guidelines as their own policies governing their highway safety programs. Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17 (HSPS 17), specifies that a bus used to transport 16 or less students must either be identified with the words "School Bus" and comply with the standard's requirements for color, mirrors and signal lamps, or be devoid of all of these characteristics. As it happens, however, a bus sold for use as a school bus is required by the Vehicle Safety Act to have warning lights and mirrors (as well as many other safety features). Because it must have this equipment, a 13 or 15 passenger bus in a State whose law fully incorporates HSPS 17 would have to be painted and signed as a school bus. For a state that has adopted this standard as its own policy, these specifications apply to activity buses as well as to the buses used for daily transportation.

I want to stress that HSPS 17 will affect you only if Pennsylvania has adopted it and if Pennsylvania accepts our view that the specifications apply to activity buses. Your State officials will be able to give you more information about other State requirements for school buses.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

November 15, 1984

Mr. Frank Berndt National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, NW Washington, DC 20001

Dear Mr. Berndt,

I am writing from St. Peter's School, a private independent school, in Philadelphia. In trying to determine how we can comply with Pennsylvania House Bills #2095 and #2522, I have spoken with Mr. William Hilton at the Pennsylvania Department of Motor Vehicles. When I explained to him that we have two vans, one holding 13 people and the other 15, which enable us to transport an entire class, and that we use the vans only for class trips and school sports events, he suggested I write you about your legal opinion exempting schools from compliance because of "occasional use" as opposed to "significant use" of school vehicles.

We do not transport students to and from school on a daily basis. In September 1984 our vans were used for school activities a total of three times. In October 1984 they were used eleven times.

Would we qualify for the above exemption from the Pennsylvania State House Bills? If so, would you send us a copy of your legal opinion.

I appreciate your help in this matter especially since we are a small school and it would be a hardship for us to comply with these bills.

Sincerely yours,

Phyllis A. Sirine Administrative Secretary