ID: 16805.ztv

Mr. A. Dorian Challoner
311 Carriage Place
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266

Dear Mr. Challoner:

Representative Jane Harmon has asked us to address the problem you reported to her office about your mother's car.

According to the information you provided Ms. Harmon, the car is a 1990 Dodge Dynasty manufactured for the Canadian market. Since 1990, your mother has driven the car in the United States under Ontario registration. She has become a permanent resident of the United States, specifically, California. However, California will not register the car until you obtain a letter from its manufacturer saying that the vehicle is identical in all material respects to one that was manufactured to conform to all applicable U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Further, it requires that you contact this Department "for the proper clearance letter."

You have attempted to obtain such a letter from Chrysler Corporation. However, the company has informed you that it cannot grant your request because the Canadian-market car fails to comply with the requirement of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 that a 1990 model car must be equipped with either an automatic seat belt system, or an air bag. It also advises that modification is not feasible, due to the cost.

Your mother's situation is similar to that experienced by a number of others in California who have tried to register a Canadian car. I would like to explain how the importation process was supposed to have worked in your mother's case. As a general rule, a motor vehicle must conform to the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and be certified as meeting those standards, in order to be imported permanently into the United States. Non-residents of the United States are permitted to enter their non-conforming vehicles into the United States for a continuous period of up to one year, provided that they declare in writing that they will not sell the car in the United States and that they will export it at the end of that time. If the vehicle remains in the United States for longer than a year, there is a technical violation of the importation regulations. If your mother made yearly trips to Canada in her car, there would appear to be no violation of this regulation if the successive re-importations were for periods of a year or less.

There is a substantial similarity between Canadian and U.S. passenger car safety standards, so much so that the agency admits Canadian vehicles on a permanent basis if their manufacturer provides a letter to the owner attesting to the vehicle's compliance. However, if a manufacturer will not provide such a letter, the owner must follow the procedure established by statute. This procedure was established by Congress and requires the Administrator of this agency to have made a decision that the vehicle in question is capable of being conformed to comply with the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This decision is made on the Administrator's motion, or after a petition by a Registered Importer. A Registered Importer is a person that the agency recognizes as capable of modifying and certifying noncomplying vehicles to meet the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and who has agreed with the importer to modify and certify the car. If the Administrator finds that the particular vehicle model is capable of being so modified, the vehicle may be imported under bond. Conformance work would be performed by a Registered Importer, who then certifies the car to NHTSA. When the agency is satisfied with the Registered Importer's certification, it issues the bond release letter that California requires for registration. Thus, had your mother followed the course prescribed by law for permanent importations, she would have contracted with a Registered Importer, who would have petitioned on her behalf. If such a petition had been granted (no decisions have ever been made regarding 1990 Canadian Dodge cars), the Registered Importer would have brought the vehicle into compliance with Standard No. 208, and the vehicle then could have been registered in California.

At this point, your mother has two options. The first is to return the vehicle to Canada (or export it to Mexico, which is closer to you). Second, she may contract with a Registered Importer for the petition/modification and certification procedure described in the previous paragraph. The closest Registered Importer to you is G & K Automotive Conversions, 3231 South Standard Avenue, Santa Ana, CA 92705 (phone: 714-545-9503; fax: 714-545-7667). While this procedure may seem to be unduly burdensome for the owner of a vehicle that has been operated in the United States for some years, there are benefits to following it. If Chrysler Corporation, which manufactured the car, recalls 1990 Dodge Dynasty vehicles for safety or emissions reasons, the Registered Importer is required to notify your mother of the recall and provide an appropriate remedy. In addition, the presence of the certification label on the vehicle should relieve future owners of the car of the need to re-satisfy registration authorities in California or elsewhere that the vehicle meets all U.S. requirements, and thus make possible resale easier.

If your mother chooses to sell the car rather than to arrange for it to be brought into compliance with Standard No. 208, she would not be violating Federal law if she sold it in the United States. However, it would be in the best interest of motor vehicle safety if the sale of this nonconforming vehicle took place in Canada, its country of origin, where it conforms to local standards, or in Mexico, where the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards are not in effect.

We regret that we cannot be of greater assistance. If you have any additional questions, please contact Taylor Vinson of this Office at phone number 202-366-5263.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
cc: Representative Jane Harmon
Torrance, CA Office
ref:591
d.2/18/98

ID: 16845.wkm

Mr. Harold E. Hutchings
10 Winslow Road
North Quincy, MA 02171

Dear Mr. Hutchings:

This responds to your letter following up on your earlier request for information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), relating to this agency's rulemaking actions on antilock braking systems (ABS) for light duty vehicles. I apologize for the delay in responding.

Your letter discusses problems you have encountered obtaining information on ABS. In your FOIA request, you had asked for, among other things, "a report you received from the General Motors Engineers [sic] who reported after extensive investigations the problems with A.B.S. were unresolvable." In response, Ms. Coleman of my staff stated that the agency was unable to locate this specific report. However, she stated that material provided by General Motors Corporation (GM) to the agency pertaining to the ABS rulemaking can be obtained from the agency's Technical Reference Library (which has since been renamed Technical Information Services (TIS)) , and provided the docket number for the ABS action (Docket No. 93-94). According to your letter, you contacted TIS and received a list of commenters and other entries to that docket. You said you then contacted the National Technical Information Service "regarding those numbers" but were informed that you need to provide "proper D.O.T. and other numbers" to obtain the information you seek.

As Ms. Coleman wrote you previously, the agency was not able to locate the GM report in our files. However, all material submitted to the agency by GM pertaining to the ABS rulemaking action is listed on the index you received from TIS. You may obtain copies of any document listed in the index by contacting TIS and referencing the document number shown on the listing. You may contact TIS by visiting, calling or writing to that office at the following address: NHTSA, Room 5108, 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington D.C. 20590.

I hope this information has been helpful.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:105
d.6/5/98

ID: 17893a.df

Mr. Bobby Puett
President
Diversified Testing Laboratories, Inc.
336 West Front Street
P.O. Box 4004
Burlington, North Carolina 27215

Dear Mr. Puett:

This responds to your letter concerning the test procedures in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. I apologize for the delay in my response.

You explain that you tested a lightweight coated fabric both with and without support wires and had dramatically different test results. You state that when you tested the fabric without the support wires, the fabric burned at a rate of 15 inches per minute and failed the test (the standard limits the burn rate to not more than 4 inches per minute). In addition, the testing specimen bent slightly during the test. You explain further that when you tested the fabric with support wires and a U-shaped frame as specified in Standard 302, the fabric "ignited but self-extinguished upon contact with the second cross wire from the end of the frame" and passed the test. You express concern over the variation in test results and ask when to use a frame with support wires and where to place the support wires during testing.

Section S5.1.3 of Standard 302 states, in relevant part, that:

A specimen that softens and bends at the flaming end so as to cause erratic burning is kept horizontal by supports consisting of thin, heat resistant wires, spanning the width of the U-shaped frame under the specimen at 1-inch intervals. A device that may be used for supporting this type of material is an additional U-shaped frame, wider than the U-shaped frame containing the specimen, spanned by 10--mil wires of heat resistant composition at 1-inch intervals, inserted over the bottom U-shaped frame.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration cannot specify, outside of the context of a compliance test, whether it will use support wires to test your material. As a matter of policy, a decision to use wires is made only in the context of compliance testing. The agency decides to use wires based on observations made in previously-conducted compliance tests of the specimen, or on the agency's knowledge of or testing experience with components that are highly similar to a test specimen. We note that the test condition noted in S5.1.3 should be read as a whole. Thus, the supplemental supports are only to be used if the specimen (1) softens and bends at the flaming end (2) so as to cause erratic burning. The agency does not use support wires in situations of erratic burning alone.

If you have any questions, please contact Nicole Fradette at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:302
d.11/24/98

ID: 17895-1.pja

Mr. Mike Crabb
President
Diamond Trailer
Rt. 9, Box 1440
Mt. Pleasant, TX 75455

Dear Mr Crabb:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation on whether the line of dump body trailers your company manufactures would be excluded from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) rear impact protection (underride guard) regulations. We apologize for the delay in responding.

Your letter and the sales literature you enclosed refers to one trailer in your line that has a gross vehicle weight rating of over 10,000 pounds, Model 22WFD-L14. This trailer has a dump box on the back, which when dumping is hoisted up at the front by hydraulic lifts located under the box. You believe that this trailer would be classified as a special purpose vehicle. You state that installing an underride guard would make this trailer useless. As explained below, no exclusions apply to this trailer.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 224, Rear impact protection, requires most trailers and semitrailers weighing over 10,000 pounds to be fitted at the rear with a rear impact (underride) guard meeting the requirements of Standard No. 223, Rear impact guards (49 CFR 571.223 and 571.224, published on January 24, 1996 at 61 FR 2004). However, certain kinds of vehicles are excluded. One of these exclusions is for special purpose vehicles, which is defined in S4 of Standard No. 224 as "a trailer or semitrailer having work-performing equipment that, while the vehicle is in transit, resides in or moves through the area that could be occupied by the horizontal member of the rear underride guard, as defined by S5.1.1 through S5.1.3." NHTSA has interpreted this area to be anywhere under the vehicle, within 305 mm (one foot) forward of the rear of the vehicle.

The literature you enclosed shows only a partial view of the rear of your trailer. Based on that view and on the statement in you letter that the trailer "does not meet the 22 [inch] requirement," it does not appear that any part of your trailer would reside in the area that could be occupied by the rear underride guard, while the vehicle is in transit. If there is something there, it would have to be work-performing equipment in order for the vehicle to be considered a special purpose vehicle. NHTSA has interpreted the words "work-performing" to mean that the equipment must actively perform its function, and that the function must involve exerting force or moving something else. Unless you have work performing equipment there that meets that description, the vehicle does not meet the definition of a special purpose vehicle.

Since your trailer is not in an excluded category, it would have to be equipped with an underride guard meeting our standards. We cannot provide specific guidance on how your trailer might be redesigned to accommodate a guard. We note, however, that other manufacturers of tilt bed trailers have told us that they have found engineering solutions that would meet the requirements of the standard without compromising the function of their vehicles. Some of them are using guard designs that deploy when in the lowered configuration and automatically retract when in the tilted configuration. Perhaps this solution would work for you. We emphasize that you, as the manufacturer of the vehicle, are responsible for the vehicle's compliance.

The agency would consider a petition for temporary exemption from Standard No. 224. Under one of our regulations (49 CFR Part 555), vehicle manufacturers may apply for a temporary exemption from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Under Sec. 555.6(a), a manufacturer whose yearly production is not more than 10,000 units may ask for an exemption of up to three years on the basis that compliance would cause it substantial economic hardship and that it has attempted in good faith to comply with the standard from which it has asked to be excused. We have enclosed a copy of Part 555 for your information. We have also enclosed a copy of our regulations relating to the protection of confidential business information. Most of the trailer manufacturers submitting petitions for temporary exemption have requested that their financial information remain confidential.

Please note Part 555 requires the agency to publish a notice in the Federal Register seeking public comment on each exemption petition before a decision can be made on such a request, and then publish a second notice either granting or denying the petition. This process normally takes three to four months from the date of submittal.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures: Parts 555, 512
ref:224
d.3/11/99

ID: 17933.ztv

Mr. Jim Young
Supervisor
Electrical Engineering
Wheeled Coach
2737 North Forsyth Road
Winter Park, FL 32792

Dear Mr. Young:

This is in reply to your FAX of May 7, 1998, asking for interpretations of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. Wheeled Coach is an ambulance manufacturer whose customer specifications may or may not be permitted by Standard No. 108.

Your "Case #1" concerns a customer request for "optically combining high intensity strobe warning lights with the front turn signals." These lamps are not synchronized with the turn signals, nor are they canceled when the turn signals operate. You also relate that the strobe lights are of greater intensity than that of the turn signals.

In your opinion, "it could be argued that the strobes could impair the effectiveness of the turn signals, thereby violating S5.1.3." We agree with your opinion. If the strobe lights are optically combined with the front turn signal lamps, are of higher intensity than those lamps, and are not canceled when the turn signals operate, impairment of the effectiveness of the front turn signals seems likely to occur. However, were the system designed so that the strobe lamps are canceled when the turn signals operate, then there would be no impairment or violation of S5.1.3.

You also mention that the turn signal employs a reflector and a lens to meet photometric requirements and that the reflector would have to have a hole drilled in it to accommodate the strobe tube. There is the possibility that the modification could affect compliance of the front turn signal lamp with applicable requirements. In addition to testing the headlamp with the modified reflector for continued compliance with headlamp photometric requirements, Wheeled Coach should also ensure that the modified headlamp continues to conform with other requirements demonstrating the integrity of the lens/reflector/bulb unit of replaceable bulb headlamps, most importantly the sealing, corrosion, dust, and humidity test requirements.

As the manufacturer of the ambulance, Wheeled Coach has the responsibility of certifying compliance of the vehicle to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Your "Case #2" concerns a customer request for "optically combining high intensity strobe warning lights with the headlights." The headlamps are replaceable bulb types and the reflector in this option also would require modification to accommodate the strobe tube.

You do not mention the operating characteristics of this system. In our opinion, in order not to impair the effectiveness of the headlamp system, the strobe lamps must be canceled at any time the headlamps are activated. If the headlamps on the original vehicle are wired to act as daytime running lamps (DRLs), it is permissible to disconnect them because DRLs are not a required item of lighting equipment. As indicated in the discussion under Case #1, it would be prudent for Wheeled Coach to test the modified headlamps for compliance for photometric and other requirements.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.6/23/98

ID: 18005.drn

Mr. Jeffrey T. Morris
Director of Human Resources
George Junior Republic
P. O. Box 1058
Grove City, PA 16127

Dear Mr. Morris:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether George Junior Republic, a "non-profit residential treatment facility," must use school buses to transport youth under its care. As explained below, we do not consider the residential treatment program to constitute a "school" as that term is used in our statute. However, to the extent you transport the pupils to athletic and other events related to the public school located at your facility, a new bus that is sold for such purposes may have to be a school bus, depending on how regularly the vehicle is used for the school-related transportation. You should also keep in mind that the States regulate the registration and use of vehicles in their jurisdictions. You should therefore consult Pennsylvania law to see what requirements, if any, apply to how your youth are to be transported.

Your letter explains:

George Junior Republic is a non-profit residential treatment facility located in Grove City, Pennsylvania. We provide residential care to approximately 460 teenagers who are adjudicated delinquent or dependent and court ordered into treatment for care and rehabilitation. ... All of our students are educated by Public School Systems. The residents attend a school located on our campus which is operated and governed by the Grove City Area School District. These students walk to and from school so transportation is not a problem.

You also explain that each youth lives in a campus home with seven other youths, headed by a married couple who are the counselor/parents. The youths with their counselor/parents may attend off-campus activities that require transportation. In addition, you explained to Dorothy Nakama of my staff that George Junior Republic youth participate in athletic competitions with other schools in the Grove City Area School District. They are also occasionally taken on field trips for academic purposes.

Some background information on our requirements may be helpful. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles, including school buses. In 1974, Congress enacted legislation directing NHTSA to issue safety standards on specific aspects of school bus safety, and to apply those standards to all school buses. Our statute defines a "school bus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying 11 or more persons and 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. Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112 requires any person selling or leasing a new "school bus," which may include a 15-passenger van, to sell or lease a vehicle that meets the Federal school bus safety standards. The seller risks substantial penalties if he or she knowingly sells a vehicle for use as a school bus and the vehicle is not certified as such.

Your letter raises two questions. First is whether George Junior Republic's residential treatment program constitutes a "school." This question is one the agency finds appropriate to resolve case-by-case, focusing on the type of services provided by the organization at issue.

The facts you have provided show that George Junior Republic primarily provides psychological and therapeutic counseling and other social services for the youngsters. For purposes of NHTSA's safety standards, I have concluded that these services are distinct from the academic instruction associated with a "school," and that therefore, George Junior Republic is not a "school." (This finding is consistent with NHTSA's April 8, 1998, letter to Mr. Hammontree of Starr Commonwealth, a residential treatment facility whose program appears similar to that of George Junior Republic.) Thus, if a dealer were to sell a new bus to George Junior Republic for purposes of transporting youth to social services activities relating to the rehabilitation of your clients, the dealer need not sell a school bus.

The second issue is whether school buses are required in transporting George Junior Republic youngsters to and from events related to the public schools, e.g., athletic competitions with other Grove City schools, and school-related field trips.

From your letter, we are unable to estimate the extent of transportation for "school-related" activities versus non-school related activities (such as outings with parent/counselors and others for recreational or rehabilitation purposes). Please note that we consider any bus that is likely to be "used significantly" to transport students to or from school or related events a "school bus." If your buses are only occasionally used for school-related events, such use would not be significant. However, if your vehicles are used on a regular basis to transport students to school-related events, the buses would be school buses. Any person selling a new bus (including 15-passenger vans) for regular use transporting students to school-related events would be required to sell a certified school bus.

Please note that Federal law and NHTSA's safety standards directly regulate only the manufacturer and seller of new motor vehicles, not individual users. Federal law does not prohibit owners from using their vans to transport school children, regardless of whether such vans meet the Federal school bus safety standards. However, the states have the authority to regulate the use of motor vehicles, including school vehicles, and your state may have restrictions on the types of vehicles you may use. Thus, you should consult Pennsylvania law as to whether Pennsylvania has requirements for the vehicles you use for carrying clients to social services programs, or to school-related events.

For information on Pennsylvania's requirements, you can contact Pennsylvania's State Director of Pupil Transportation:

Mr. Stephen Madrak
Manager, Special Driver Program
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
P. O. Box 68684
Harrisburg, PA 17106-8684
Telephone: (717) 783-4755

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
ref:571#VSA

ID: 18010.drn

James B. Cantwell, Esq.
Assistant Commissioner and Chief Counsel
State of New York
Department of Transportation
Albany, New York 12232

Dear Mr. Cantwell:

This responds to your letter of May 12, 1998 asking that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) find that buses ordered by two private high schools on Long Island are eligible to be recertified as a school buses. Your letter explains that in February 1998, the two high schools, Chaminade and Kellenberg, ordered a total of six new 21-passenger buses to transport their sports teams. The letter explains that all six buses have been manufactured, that each bus was certified under 49 CFR Part 567 as a "bus," and that all of the buses were to have been delivered to the distributor by the week of May 18. Your letter goes on to state:

The attached letter from Goshen Coach [the bus manufacturer] indicates these buses appear to comply with NHTSA's Part 571 school bus standards in all required areas, except for 571.131 (School Bus Stop Arm) and 571.222 (School Bus Seats). The distributor has advised us that it is prepared to install a school bus stop arm that satisfies Section 571.131 and believes that the installed seats, manufactured by Freedman Seating Company of Chicago, IL address the requirements of Section 571.222.

It is not completely clear from your letter who will be taking the final steps to conform the buses to the vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses. At the point the buses are delivered to the schools, they will have to be certified as complying with these standards. Goshen Coach and its distributor are evidently aware that the standards applicable to school buses differ from those applicable to other buses with respect to several aspects of performance. In addition to the standards for stop arms and seating, there are also requirements for school bus windows, exits, lighting, mirrors, rollover protection, fuel system protection, and the strength of bus body joints. Your letter suggests that some equipment subject to these requirements may be installed before Goshen Coach delivers the buses to its distributor (e.g., the seats) and other equipment may be installed by the distributor (e.g., the stop arms).

Under the regulatory framework established by Chapter 301 of Title 49, United States Code, the manufacturer of a vehicle must certify that a vehicle complies with the standards applicable to it. If Goshen's distributor installs equipment that relates to the buses' compliance with the standards before it delivers the buses to the schools, the distributor would be considered an alterer under our regulations and would share responsibility with Goshen for the final certification of compliance with the standards. There is no requirement under Chapter 301 for prior approval by NHTSA, nor does the agency issue such approvals. However, if NHTSA tests a vehicle and finds that it does not comply with a standard, it can require the manufacturer to recall the vehicle and remedy the noncompliance at no cost to the vehicle owner. Chapter 301 also specifies a civil penalty of up to $1100 for each noncompliance.

Although Norman Schneider of the New York State Department of Transportation has provided us general information about the buses in question, we are not in a position to decide whether the buses comply with the school bus standards. Goshen Coach and its distributor have represented that the buses call be brought into full compliance with NHTSA's school bus standards by the addition of the stop arms and the seats that Freedman Seating Company has installed. If Goshen Coach and its distributor, upon modifying the buses, believe that the buses meet the standards applicable to school buses, and certify under 49 CFR Part 567 that the buses meet the standard, the buses could be sold and delivered to the high schools.

Goshen Coach and its distributor should be aware that before they certify the buses they must exercise reasonable care to ensure that the buses, in fact, meet the standards, and that they would be responsible for remedying any vehicle subsequently found to be in noncompliance.

I hope that you find this responsive to your request. I am enclosing a November 2, 1992 NHTSA interpretation letter to Aetna Life Insurance Co., that lists the requirements applicable to school buses in greater detail. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
cc: Ms. June E. Van Nevel
Sales Coordinator
Goshen Coach
Warwick Industries, Inc.
1110 D. I. Drive
Elkhart, IN 46514

ID: 18019.ogm

Mr. Christopher J. Roberts
Leoci & Meisenberg, P.A.
2256 Heitman Street
Fort Myers, FL 33901-3744

Dear Mr. Roberts:

This is in response to your letter requesting information about standards for motorcycle helmets, particularly those manufactured after 1980. In addition to information relating to standards for motorcycle helmets, you have also asked if the agency maintains records of helmets that have been recalled and how you might obtain copies of these records.

By delegation from the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), NHTSA is the Federal Government agency responsible for improving safety on our Nation's highways. As part of our efforts to achieve that goal, we are authorized, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30111, to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). These standards require minimum levels of performance for new vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Pursuant to this authority, NHTSA has promulgated FMVSS No. 218, "Motorcycle Helmets," which applies to all helmets designed for highway use by motorcyclists. Pursuant to 30012(a) of Title 49, it is unlawful to manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction into interstate commerce, or import into the United States any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that does not comply with all applicable safety standards, including Standard 218.

I have enclosed a copy of the current version of Standard 218 for your use. The Standard is also available in Volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations at 49 CFR 571.218. If you have access to the World Wide Web, the Code of Federal Regulations can be found at http://www.nara.gov.

Standard 218 was first promulgated in 1973 and amended in 1974, 1980, and 1988.

The performance requirements of Standard 218 remained unchanged from 1973 until 1988. The original version of the Standard applied to all helmets designed for highway use by motorcyclists. However, through a final rule published in the Federal Register on January 28, 1974 (39 FR 3554), the Standard was amended to restrict its application only to helmets that fit on a specific headform, known as the size "C" headform. This amendment was necessitated by difficulties in developing appropriate different sized headforms for testing. However, as these difficulties continued, the agency concluded that a precise fit was not as critical for testing purposes as had previously been thought and the "C" headform could be used more widely. Therefore, Standard 218 was again amended on March 10, 1980 (45 FR 151181) to apply to all helmets that could be placed on the "C" headform even if the helmet did not precisely fit that headform. After other difficulties with test headforms were finally resolved, the Standard was amended again on April 6, 1988 (53 FR 11280) to apply to all helmets designed for highway use by motorcyclists. The 1988 amendments also modified the performance requirements of Standard 218 in regard to the areas of the helmet subject to penetration and impact testing, temperature conditioning prior to testing and the properties of the test devices used to perform testing. Copies of each of the notices implementing these amendments are enclosed.

Information related to helmet recalls may be obtained from NHTSA's office of Technical Information Services (TIS). You may contact TIS at this address:

Technical Information Services (NAD-40)
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
400 7^th Street S.W., Room 5110
Washington, D.C. 20590

The telephone number for TIS is: (800-445-0197); this number is answered between 1:00 and 3:00 P.M. Monday through Friday, by TIS staff in order to provide general assistance; however, reference requests must be made in writing. The FAX number, (202-493-2833), may be used to submit requests to TIS, however TIS will respond by mail or courier service (at the requestor's expense).

Information about the services offered by TIS is also available on the World Wide Web at: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/trd/.

I hope that this responsive to your inquiry. If you have any questions, please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at (202) 366-5253.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:218
d.12/1/98

ID: 18026a.drn

Frederick W. Rentschler, President
Rentschler Chrysler-Plymouth Chevrolet-Geo
N. Walnut Street
Slatington, PA 18080

Dear Mr. Rentschler:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether a dealer may sell a new van that seats fewer than 11 persons to a school, for use in transporting school children. Such a van is a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV) under our regulations. As explained below, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not prohibit a dealer from selling a new MPV for such a purpose.

By way of background, NHTSA is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles, including school buses. Any person selling a new vehicle must sell a vehicle that meets all applicable standards. Under our regulations, a "bus" is a vehicle that has a seating capacity of 11 persons or more. A "school bus" is a "bus" that is sold for purposes that include carrying school children to or from school or related events (49 C.F.R. 571.3). Because any new "bus" that is sold for pupil transportation purposes is a "school bus," the school bus standards apply, and any person selling such a vehicle must ensure that the vehicle is certified as meeting our school bus standards.

We do not require, however, that only school buses can be sold for pupil transportation. Under our regulations, a van that seats fewer than 11 persons is an "MPV," which is defined in 571.3 as a motor vehicle "designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." An MPV is a different type of vehicle than a bus or a school bus, and must meet safety standards that apply to MPVs. Dealers selling new MPVs must be sure to sell vehicles that have been certified to the MPV standards. Manufacturers may voluntarily manufacture MPVs to meet school bus standards on aspects of performance that do not conflict with MPV standards, such as emergency exits, joint strength, and roof crush.

Please note that Federal law and NHTSA's safety standards directly regulate only the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, not their use. Each State is free to impose its own standards regarding use of motor vehicles for pupil transportation, including MPVs or school buses.

NHTSA has issued guidelines for States to use in developing their highway safety programs. NHTSA has issued Highway Safety Program Guideline 17, Pupil Transportation Safety (copy enclosed), to provide recommendations on various operational aspects of State school bus and pupil transportation safety programs. Each State determines the extent to which it adopts the recommendations in Guideline 17.

For information on Pennsylvania's requirements on transportation of school children, please contact Pennsylvania's State Director of Pupil Transportation:

Ms. Pamela Thomas
Manager, Special Driver Program
Pennsylvania Dept. of Transportation
P. O. Box 68684
Harrisburg, PA 17106-8684

Ms. Thomas' phone number is: (717) 772-2117.

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
d.7/7/98

ref: VSA102(14)#Part 571.3, "multipurpose passenger vehicle"# Part 571.3 "school bus only"

ID: 18033.ztv

Mr. Edward F. Dugan
President
Soda Fountain
FAX 908-322-3026

Dear Mr. Dugan:

This is in reply to your letter of May 14, 1998, to the New York Regional Office of this agency, with respect to a lighting device that you wish to offer to funeral directors. This device is a battery operated lamp, 3 inches in diameter, intended to be attached by a magnet or suction cup to the roofs of cars in funeral processions. The lamp, which emits a white color, flashes, with the intent of assisting drivers in the procession to stay together. You also note your belief that, with the advent of daytime running lamps, headlamps alone "are no longer a sufficient identifier of a funeral procession." You have asked if we have any objection to the use of these lamps.

The use of these lamps would not violate any Federal statute or regulation. They are subject to the laws of the State or municipality in which they will be used. Some jurisdictions may prohibit the use of flashing lights except on police or emergency vehicles. However, we are not conversant with local laws and are not able to advise you about them.

Because our interpretations are a matter of public record, I would like to explain briefly, without legal citations, how we reached our conclusion that the use of these lamps is not prohibited under Federal law. A flashing white lamp cannot be installed on a new motor vehicle, before its first sale, because all lamps must be steady burning, except for turn and hazard warning signals, school bus warning lamps, and headlamps that flash for signaling purposes. After the first sale of a vehicle, the lamp could not be attached by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business because that would make inoperative the Federal lighting standard that applied to the vehicle when it was new. But this prohibition covers only the entities named, and installation of the flashing lamp by a person other than the entities named is not prohibited. That is to say, an employee of a funeral home or the owner of a vehicle in the procession can install the lamp without violating Federal law.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.6/24/98