ID: aiam1509

Dear Mr. Lackey: We are enclosing herewith a copy of new Federal Motor Vehicle Safet Standard No. 119, which becomes effective March 1, 1975, and a copy of a notice of proposed rulemaking regarding a new Federal standard (No. 120) which proposes requirements for tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars.; There are no Federal requirements regarding the tensile strength o tire bead.; We regret we cannot be of further assistance. Sincerely, E. T. Driver, Office of Crash Avoidance, Motor Vehicl Programs;

ID: aiam2033

Dear Mr. Inoue: This responds to your letter of July 14, 1975, concerning th permissibility of placing arrow-shaped markings on tire sidewalls to show the location of the treadwear indicators.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 specifies certai labeling requirements for passenger car tires. Standard No. 119 specifies similar labeling for tires designed for use on vehicles other than passenger cars. Although the arrows which you have described are not required by either of these standards, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has no objection to such markings provided that none of the required label information is omitted.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0094

Dear mr. Palazzi: Thank you for your letter of June 3 to the National Highway Safet Bureau asking 'whether the solution given in the enclosed drawing N. 591-1559 of Ferrari is in line with the requirements' of Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 211.; This standard states that 'wheel nuts, hub caps, and wheel discs fo use on passenger cars...shall not incorporate winged projections'. The Ferrari plan appears to incorporate such a projection, even though it is recessed. Accordingly the proposed solution by Ferrari does not meet the requirements of Federal standard No. 211.; Sincerely, Joseph R. O'Gorman, Acting Director

ID: 14285.mls

Mr. Ken Bratlie
President
Columbia Corporation
5775 NW Wagon Way
Hillsboro, OR 97124-8531

Dear Mr. Bratlie:

This responds to your inquiry about whether two types of "trailer tippers" (a "Woods Products Trailer Tipper" and a "Landfill Trailer Tipper") are motor vehicles that would have to comply with the applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. A trailer tipper is used to empty the contents from a semitrailer onto the ground by elevating (tipping) one end of the trailer and pouring the content out the other end. You state that each trailer tipper stays at an off-road work site, such as a mill or a landfill, the majority of its life and is infrequently transported over public roads between job sites.

As way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) interprets and enforces the laws under which the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) are promulgated. NHTSA's statute defines the term "motor vehicle" as follows:

"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."

Whether the agency considers your trailer tippers to be motor vehicles depends on their use. It is the agency's position that this statutory definition does not encompass mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, which use the highway only to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site. In such cases, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. In contrast are instances where vehicles, such as dump trucks, frequently use the highway going to and from job sites, and stay at a job site for only a limited time. Such vehicles are considered motor vehicles, since the on-highway use is more than "incidental."

Based on the available information, it appears that your trailer tippers are not "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the statutory definition. This conclusion is based on your statements in your letter that the trailer tippers typically spend extended periods of time at a single site and only use the public roads infrequently to move between job sites. Thus, the agency would consider the use of the trailer tippers on the public roads to be incidental and not their primary purpose. Since your trailer tippers are not motor vehicles, they would not be subject to our Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Accordingly, the trailer tippers would not be required to be equipped with antilock brake systems.

If NHTSA were to receive additional information indicating that your trailer tippers used the roads more than on an incidental basis, then the agency would reassess this interpretation. If the agency were to determine that your trailer tippers are motor vehicles, then they would have to comply with the applicable Standards, including Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, which addresses conspicuity, Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, and Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. The content requirements for the vehicle identification number are found at 49 CFR Part 565. In addition, if the trailer tipper were a motor vehicle, while it would not be required to be equipped with brakes, if it is equipped with hydraulic brakes, then you would need to use brake hoses and brake fluids that comply with Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses, and Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids. Please note that trailers equipped with air brakes are required to comply with Standard No. 106 and Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

In addition, if your trailers were motor vehicles, you, as a motor vehicle manufacturer, would be required to submit identification information to this agency in accordance with 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. You would also be required to certify that each trailer complies with all applicable Federal safety standards. This certification procedure is set out in 49 CFR Part 567.

Please note that since a State may require an off-road vehicle to be registered, you may wish to contact the States in which your trailer tippers are used about any such requirements.

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:VSA
d:5/6/97

ID: 1983-2.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/08/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: C. B. Bright Motor Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION Washington, D.C. 20590

August 8, 1983

Mr. C. B. Bright, Jr. C. B. Bright Motor Co. Route 1 Ashland, MS 38603

Dear Mr. Bright:

This is in reply to your letter of July 19, 1983, to Mr. Vinson of this office. You have asked whether you are violating any Federal standards or regulations by adding "right side steering, accelerator, brakes & turn signal controls to rural mail carriers delivery vehicles (cars, pickup, jeeps, etc.)." You have told us that you do not modify in any way the left hand side controls with which the vehicle was originally equipped.

Assuming that your modifications do not affect the performance of any of the systems with which the vehicle was equipped by its original manufacturer, your conversion operations would not be prohibited by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. However, with respect to any new vehicle that you modify which has not yet reached its first purchaser for purposes other than resale, you are required to affix a label identifying you as the alterer and certifying that the vehicle as altered meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This is required by Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 567.7. I enclose a copy of Part 567 for your information.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

C. B. BRIGHT MOTOR CO. Ashland, Miss. 38603

July 19, 1983

MR. TAYLOR VINSON OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNCIL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION NUMBER 400 7th. ST. S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590

MR. TAYLOR:

IN REGARDS TO OUR TELEPHONE CONVERSATION ON OUR ADDING RIGHT SIDE STEERING, ACCELERATOR, BRAKE & TURN SIGNAL CONTROLS TO RURAL MAIL CARRIERS DELIVERY VEHICLES ( CARS, PICKUPS, JEEPS & ETC.).

WE DO NOT CHARGE UP, MODIFY OR TAKE OUT ANY OF THE FACTORY INSTALLED CONTROLLS THAT HAVE BEEN CERTIFIED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. CONTROLS MEANING STEERING, BRAKE, ACCELERATOR AND TURN SIGNAL.

WE HAVE ADDED THESE DUAL CONTROLS TO MAIL CARRIER DELIVERY VEHICLES SINCE 1958 AND THE USE AND SAFETY HAVE BEEN PROVED BEYOND ANY DOUBT.

I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF WE VIOLATE ANY STANDARDS OR REGULATIONS WHEN WE ADD THE DUAL CONTROLS ( STEERING, BRAKE, ACCELERATOR AND TURN SIGNAL CONTROL FOR RIGHT SIDE USE OF VEHICLE.).

ENCLOSED IS A COPY OF A LETTER FROM THE NATIONAL PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL RURAL LETTER CARRIER'S ASSOCIATION.

I SINCERELY THANK YOU FOR THE KINDNESS AND CONSIDERATION YOU GAVE ME BY PHONE.

SINCERELY,

C. B. BRIGHT

NATIONAL RURAL LETTER CARRIERS ASSOCIATION

February 8, 1983 Mr. C. B. Bright Committeeman, Mississippi Rural Letter Carriers' Assn. Ashland, Mississippi 38603

Dear C. B.

This is in response to our telephone conversation concerning the dual controls which you manufacture and install on vehicles for rural carriers.

I advised you I would write you a letter relative to my own use of the dual controls. For the last several years I served on Route #1, Palestine, Arkansas. I used a vehicle equipped with the dual control system. That was during a period that ended in September, 1977. At that time, I assumed the duties of a Na-tional Officer and I have not carried a rural route since that time.

My own personal experience with the dual controls proved to be completely satisfactory, both from an operational and a safety standpoint. The steering was completely functional and the accelerator and brakes were also without fault.

******Letter not complete due to poor copy.

ID: 1983-3.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/20/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Liberty Square

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. P. T. Miller 90 W. 79th Avenue Liberty Square P.O. Box G Merriville, Indiana 46410

Dear Mr. Miller:

The Department of Commerce has forwarded your letter of September 27, 1983, to Mr. Vinson of this office, for our reply. You have asked about Federal standards for motorcycle headlamps in connection with your investigation of an accident in Indiana involving a motorcycle reputedly equipped with "a custom light approximately 2 1/2" by 5"...smaller than a stock light." Indiana Law requires that motorcycles be equipped with headlamps meeting Federal standards.

The principal Federal standard on motorcycle headlighting is SAE Standard J584a, incorporated by reference in 49 CFR 571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. The standards do not list permissible sizes for motorcycle headlamps that are not sealed beam, specifying only that the light emitted comply with requirements at various photometric test points. Thus, the small size of the lamp in question is not indicative that it failed to meet Federal motorcycle requirements.

However, we are not aware that motorcycle headlamps are available in rectangular sizes smaller than those used on passenger cars, i.e.,4" by 6". Perhaps the lamp in question was intended by its manufacturer for use as a driving lamp on passenger cars; its size is consistent with that type of lamp. But without further information I'm afraid we can be of no greater assistance.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Reference # 3-1538

September 27, 1983

P. T. Miller 90 W. 79th Avenue Liberty Square P. 0. Box G Merriville, Indiana 46410

Dear Mr. Miller:

This is in response to your letter about standards for sizes of motorcycle headlights.

I was unable to locate information on Department of Commerce standards in this area. However, Mr. Taylor Vinson of the Chief Counsel's Office of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration advised me that Federal transportation laws and standards have been under the jurisdiction of that agency since 1969. He asked me to send him a copy of your letter so that he could investigate your question and answer you directly.

Any further requests on this matter should be sent to:

Taylor Vinson Office of Chief Counsel, Room 5219 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W.

Washington, D. C. 20590 (202) 426-9511

Sincerely,

Christopher Benya Office of Consumer Affairs

cc: Taylor Vinson

September 9, 1983

Department of Commerce 14th St. East St. Northwest Room 5725 Washington D. C. 20230

Attention: Lee Gray Director of Consumer Affairs

RE: Our File No. 8-309072-1 Our Insured: Thomas Daniels Loss of: 8-12-83

Dear Mr. Gray:

I am investigating a serious accident involving an automobile and a motorcycle and the investigating police officer in his report stated that the light on the motorcycle was a custom light approximately 2 1/2" by 5" and was smaller that a stock light.

A check of the Indiana Statute regarding lamps or reflectors on motorcycles states that no motorcycles shall be operated on public streets or highways by a resident of this state that is not equipped with a lamp or reflectors meeting the standards of the US Dept. of Commerce as amended. You will note that they refer to the standards set by the Department of Commerce.

If you could forward to this office a copy of the directive showing the standards of headlights required on motorcycles that the Indiana Law refers to.

Your help will be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

P. T. Miller Asst. Distr. Claim Manager

66 E. SOUTH WATER ST./CHICAGO, IL 60601/(312) 372-1818

ID: 1985-04.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/15/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. David Walsh

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. David Walsh 16892 Centralia Redford, Michigan 48240

Dear Mr. Walsh:

Thank you for your letter of September 15, 1985 inquiring about th Federal safety standards that apply to a product you have developed. You described the product as a mini-venetian blind that is held on a side window of a vehicle by four suction cups. The purpose of the blind is to shield vehicle occupants from the sun. The following discussion explains the applicability of our safety standards to your product.

Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, we have issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Vo. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).

No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and other sun screen devices, such as the one described in your letter, in new vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard.

After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to a vehicle are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from tampering with safety equipment installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. Thus, no dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor can install a sun screen device for the owner of the vehicle, if the device would cause the window not to meet the requirements of Standard Vo. 205. Violation of the "render inoperative" provision can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect vehicle owners, who may themselves alter their vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may install sun screening devices regardless of whether the installation adversely affects the light transmittance. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from applying sun screens on their vehicles. You asked about State laws affecting your product. I suggest you contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, which may be able to tell you about State laws or refer you to the appropriate officials in the States in which you wish to sell your product. The address for AAMVA is Suite 910, 1201 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.

If you need further information, please let me know.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

David Walsh 16892 Centralia Redford, Michigan 48240 Office of Chief Counsel NHTSA 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 September 15, 1985 Dear Sir,

Recently I developed a product for use on four-door passenger cars; designed to act as a sun visor for rear seat occupants. This product, known as the Autoblind, is a fully functional mini-venetian blind. The attached photographs show an automobile with the Autoblind in place. The Autoblind is not a permanent fixture on the car, and the slats can be adjusted to allow sun blockage but continued vision.

I have contacted the Michigan Department of Commerce to determine the legality of this product in the state. From their standpoint, use of this product is legal provided the automobile is equipped with two outside side-view mirrors.

However, it has been suggested that I also obtain a federal ruling for this product. Would the use of the Autoblind, on the rear compartment side windows, violate any federal laws?

Also, if use of this product meets federal safety standards, could you suggest a method in which I could learn if its use would violate any state laws?

Many thanks for your attention. Sincerely Yours, David Walsh

ID: 8599

Mr. Frank Millar
1841 Shady Brook Drive
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362

Dear Mr. Millar:

This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, and Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practice J201. I apologize for the delay in our response. You asked about the significance of the two documents for manufacturers and consumers. You also asked whether you are correct in interpreting section S5.2.1 of Standard No. 105 as requiring the parking brake of a Toyota Camry with a standard (stick shift) transmission to hold the car stationary on a hill with a 30 percent grade in both forward and reverse directions for five minutes. Your questions are addressed below.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards.

Standard No. 105 is one of the safety standards issued by NHTSA. The standard specifies requirements for hydraulic service brake systems and associated parking brake systems, for the purpose of ensuring safe braking performance under both normal and emergency situations. The standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with hydraulic service brake systems. Manufacturers must ensure that each new vehicle complies with each applicable requirement of the standard. The standard specifies the specific test conditions under which each performance requirement must be met.

You asked the agency to confirm your understanding that section S5.2.1 of Standard No. 105 requires the parking brake of a Toyota Camry with a standard transmission to hold the car stationary on a 30 percent grade for five minutes in both forward and reverse directions. Section S5.2.1 reads as follows:

Except as provided in S5.2.2, the parking brake system on a passenger car . . . shall be capable of holding the vehicle stationary (to the limit of traction on the braked wheels) for 5 minutes in both a forward and reverse direction on a 30 percent grade.

Section S5.2.1 thus applies to all passenger cars, except as provided in S5.2.2. The alternative requirement set forth in S5.2.2 is only available for certain vehicles with a transmission or transmission control which incorporates a parking mechanism. Vehicles with standard transmissions do not typically have such a parking mechanism. Assuming that a Toyota Camry does not have a parking mechanism, it would be required to meet the requirements of S5.2.1.

I note that, even assuming that a vehicle meets the requirements of S5.2.1, it would not follow that the parking brake system would hold the vehicle stationary on a 30 percent grade under all real world driving conditions. As indicated above, Standard No. 105 specifies specific test conditions under which its performance requirements must be met. In the case of the standard's parking brake requirements, the specified test conditions include such things as control force and test surface. Also, the requirement only applies to the limit of traction on the braked wheels. Thus, if a 30 percent grade has a slippery surface, the vehicle might slide down the grade even though its parking brake system held the wheels locked. Finally, the requirement applies only to new vehicles and not used ones.

You also asked the significance of SAE J201 to manufacturers and consumers. The Society of Automotive Engineers is an independent, non-governmental group. In some cases, NHTSA has incorporated portions of that organization's recommended practices into its safety standards. Since the agency has not done so with SAE J201, that recommended practice does not have any significance to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. NHTSA can only comment on the significance of its own standards and regulations and not on ones issued by other organizations or agencies. Therefore, we suggest that you contact SAE concerning the significance of SAE J201.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:105 d:9/l/93

ID: nht93-6.26

DATE: September 1, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Frank Millar

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter (fax) dated 4/28/93 from Frank Millar to John Womack (OCC 8599)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, and Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practice J201. I apologize for the delay in our response. You asked about the significance of the two documents for manufacturers and consumers. You also asked whether you are correct in interpreting section S5.2.1 of Standard No. 105 as requiring the parking brake of a Toyota Camry with a standard (stick shift) transmission to hold the car stationary on a hill with a 30 percent grade in both forward and reverse directions for five minutes. Your questions are addressed below.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards.

Standard No. 105 is one of the safety standards issued by NHTSA. The standard specifies requirements for hydraulic service brake systems and associated parking brake systems, for the purpose of ensuring safe braking performance under both normal and emergency situations. The standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with hydraulic service brake systems. Manufacturers must ensure that each new vehicle complies with each applicable requirement of the standard. The standard specifies the specific test conditions under which each performance requirement must be met.

You asked the agency to confirm your understanding that section S5.2.1 of Standard No. 105 requires the parking brake of a Toyota Camry with a standard transmission to hold the car stationary on a 30 percent grade for five minutes in both forward and reverse directions. Section S5.2.1 reads as follows:

Except as provided in S5.2.2, the parking brake system on a passenger car ... shall be capable of holding the vehicle stationary (to the limit of traction on the braked wheels) for 5 minutes in both a forward and reverse direction on a 30 percent grade.

Section S5.2.1 thus applies to all passenger cars, except as provided in S5.2.2. The alternative requirement set forth in S5.2.2 is only available for certain vehicles with a transmission or transmission control which incorporates a parking mechanism. Vehicles with standard transmissions do not typically have such a parking mechanism. Assuming that a Toyota Camry does not have a parking mechanism, it would be required to meet the requirements of S5.2.1.

I note that, even assuming that a vehicle meets the requirements of S5.2.1, it would not follow that the parking brake system would hold the vehicle stationary on a 30 percent grade under all real world driving conditions. As indicated above, Standard No. 105 specifies specific test conditions under which its performance requirements must be met. In the case of the standard's parking brake requirements, the specified test conditions include such things as control force and test surface. Also, the requirement only applies to the limit of traction on the braked wheels. Thus, if a 30 percent grade has a slippery surface, the vehicle might slide down the grade even though its parking brake system held the wheels locked. Finally, the requirement applies only to new vehicles and not used ones.

You also asked the significance of SAE J201 to manufacturers and consumers. The Society of Automotive Engineers is an independent, non-governmental group. In some cases, NHTSA has incorporated portions of that organization's recommended practices into its safety standards. Since the agency has not done so with SAE J201, that recommended practice does not have any significance to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. NHTSA can only comment on the significance of its own standards and regulations and not on ones issued by other organizations or agencies. Therefore, we suggest that you contact SAE concerning the significance of SAE J201.

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

ID: nht74-4.18

DATE: 07/17/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Sheller-Globe Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of May 15, 1974, requesting that vehicles which seat 10 persons or less, but are of the same base design as buses specifically designed as school buses, be classified as school buses regardless of their intended use.

The vehicles that would be affected by the reclassification you request are currently categorized as multipurpose passenger vehicles, since they provide seating positions for 10 persons or less. In general, the multipurpose passenger vehicle category is subject to more stringent safety requirements than either the bus or the school bus categories. Further, additional standards are becoming effective for multipurpose passenger vehicles in the near future as part of the NHTSA's overall plan to extend the requirements presently applicable to passenger cars. Thus, multipurpose passenger vehicles can expect increasingly higher safety performance levels, comparable to those of passenger cars.

Vehicles used to transport handicapped children should not be reclassified in such a way as to reduce the number or the stringency of the requirements to which they are subject.

On the basis of the above reason, the NHTSA has concluded that the vehicles about which you are petitioning should not be reclassified as school buses and your petition is therefore denied.

Sincerely

SHELLER-GLOBE CORPORATION

May 15, 1974

Office of Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attention: Lawrence R. Schneider Chief Counsel

Sheller-Globe Corporation, Superior-Lima Division, Lima, Ohio manufacture bus bodies, including school bus bodies, activity bus bodies and special bus bodies that are used in the transport of the handicapped to and from school, health centers, and special education centers.

These special bus bodies are school bus body derivatives and are constructed similar to van buses or what is commonly referred to as Type II School Buses. The departure from the Type II School Bus is in the designated seating positions.

These special bus bodies have seating positions to accompany two to four persons, not including the vehicle operator or driver. The remaining space is designed for wheelchairs. The total passenger carrying capability will vary from seven to ten persons. This, of course, varies according to customer requirements, as to seat arrangements and/or basic van model, Dodge or Chevy-Van - the Dodge Van being 18 inches longer than the Chevy-Van.

Many of these special bus bodies are purchased by schools, private and public, and require that they be identified as school buses, as well, be equipped with the traffic controlling warning lamp systems. On the other hand, many are purchased by private, special education or health care centers and do not require the school bus identification or the warning lamp system.

These special bus bodies or buses have a place on the market due to their size. They are small enough and permit the ease of handling as required to manipulate small driveways to patient and/or student doorways and ramps provided for wheelchairs. As well, their size permits the ease of parking near the school or center and doorways and ramps provided for the off loading of the students and/or patients. Some of these special bus bodies or buses are equipped with special ramps or lift gates designed for ease of handling wheelchairs.

Our concern and, of course, the reason for this communication is pertinent to Certification and Standards Application. As we understand or interpret the law, vehicles that are designed to carry ten persons or less are Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles and, therefore, must meet the requirements of applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Until now all Van Buses or Type II School Buses were designed to carry more than ten persons and certification requirements were well defined.

Therefore, Sheller-Globe Corporation petitions the N.H.T.S.A. for an interpretation and requests that these buses of the same base design as buses specifically designed as school buses, regardless of their intended use or passenger carrying capacity for purposes of Certification and Standards Application be, in fact, classified or defined as school buses.

Sheller-Globe requests your expediting a ruling on this petition.

George R. Semark

Safety Engineer-Vehicles

Transportation Equipment Group

Vehicle Development Center