ID: nht74-5.43

DATE: 08/01/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 1, 1974, letter concerning Volkswagen's petition to exempt its pre-bent vacuum hose from some requirements of Standard No. 106-74, Brake hoses. You requested that we confirm that an in-line vacuum check valve is not regulated under the standard, and that the standard's use of "light duty" and "heavy duty" vacuum hose terminology corresponds to the use of those terms in the SAE Standard J1403a. We responded to the Volkswagen petition in a letter of July 2, 1974, to Mr. J. W. Kennebeck of Volkswagen.

You are correct in your conclusion that an in-line check valve like the valve in Volkswagen's pre-bent vacuum line is not a brake hose fitting subject to the requirements of Standard No. 106-74.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration tends to make the same distinction between light and heavy duty vacuum hose types as is made by the SAE Standard J1403a, which is based on the thickness of the hose wall. In addition to those sizes listed by the SAE we have added 9/32-inch hose.

YOURS TRULY,

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

July 1, 1974

Tad Herlihy, Esq. Office of Chief Counsel NHTSA

This will confirm our recent telephone conversation concerning FMVSS 106 applicable to brake hoses.

I understood you to say that Notice 11 of Docket 1-5 was not intended to serve as a response to our letter of April 26, 1974, which raised several questions concerning the applicability of S 9.2, 9.2.2, 9.2.3, 9.2.7 and 9.2.10 to certain pre-bent non-metallic vacuum hoses used by Volkswagen. You indicated that a separate response would be forthcoming in the near future.

You also confirmed that vacuum line check valves, regardless of where they are located in relation to the engine, whether in line, such as Volkswagen's, or directly connected to the engines, are exempt from Section 106.

In a separate telephone conversation, Mr. Ziwica raised the question as to whether the substance of the definition of "light and heavy duty vacuum brake(Illegible Word)" was identical to that used in SAE J 1403. I understand that it was the NHTSA's intent to incorporate the SAE definitional elements although somewhat different language was chosen. If my understanding is incorrect, please let me know as soon as possible.

Gerhard P. Riechel Attorney

cc: Mr. K.-H. Ziwica

ID: nht75-3.35

DATE: 09/03/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; W. T. Coleman, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Hon. Bob Packwood - U.S. Senate

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of August 8, 1975, forwarding a copy of a letter to me from Mr. William G. White, President of Consolidated Freightways Corporation, and asking for early consideration of Mr. White's request. In that letter, Mr. White asks that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration require reports from all truck operators and antilock system manufacturers on any malfunction they experience with antilock systems.

I have given full consideration to the important matter of collecting sufficient data on the reliability of antilock systems used on production vehicles, and I have responded to Mr. White with my conclusions. A copy of that response is enclosed to provide you with a complete explanation of my decision.

SINCERELY,

United States Senate COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS

August 8, 1975

Honorable William T. Coleman, Jr. The Secretary of Transportation

I am attaching a copy of a letter from William White, Chairman of the Board of Consolidated Freightways, Inc. I am most interested in seeing that Mr. White's request is honored and would appreciate your early consideration of this matter. Could you please advise me of your ultimate decision.

As you may know, I have been following this matter regarding FMVSS 121 for some time. I have expressed my concern to the Administration over the hardships caused by this regulation and am awaiting their response at this time.

BOB PACKWOOD

cc: WILLIAM WHITE

CONSOLIDATED FREIGHTWAYS, INC.

July 31, 1975

Honorable William T. Coleman, Jr. The Secretary of Transportation

I attach copy of Dr. Gregory's letter to me of July 28th and my response to him.

I believe truck manufacturers, antiwheel lock device manufacturers and truck operators should be required by NHTSA to report any and all malfunctions of the antiwheel lock safety devices regardless of whether or not in their opinion the defect is safety related. All such reports should then find their way into the reliability file which has been set up in Room 5307, Motor Vehicle Programs, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. NHTSA should not be allowed to screen such reports to determine whether or not they are "suitable for public scrutiny in light of applicable regulations and proprietary considerations".

Truck operators are now required to buy trucks with this equipment and are entitled to know exactly what problems are occurring in the field.

I will very much appreciate your looking into this matter.

WILLIAM G. WHITE -- CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD

ID: nht75-3.41

DATE: 08/25/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: National Solid Wastes Management Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to the National Solid Wastes Management Association's July 29, 1975, question whether Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, or other Department of Transportation regulations require a vehicle operator to maintain and not disconnect brake components used in satisfaction of the standard. You state that you are already aware of operator responsibilities to meet the regulations of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety and those promulgated by State and local governments.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(1)(A)) specifies in part that no person shall sell or introduce in interstate commerce a vehicle which does not comply with applicable standards in effect on the date of manufacture. Section 108(b)(2) provides that @ 109(a)(1)(A) does not apply after the first purchase for purposes other than resale. The general effect of these provisions is that the brake system must comply and not be disconnected prior to its first retail sale. Section 108(a)(2)(A) provides that no manufacturer distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative a device installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard. Taken together, these provisions do not require the vehicle operator to maintain or not render inoperative a safety system after the first retail purchase. This agency does not recommend disconnection of elements of a brake system, however, in view of the probable adverse effect on handling not intended by the vehicle designer and engineer.

Other than the regulations of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, of which you are aware, no regulations of the Department of Transportation require the maintainence or prohibit the disconnection of systems installed in satisfaction of motor vehicle safety standards.

SINCERELY,

National Solid Wastes Management Association

July 29, 1975

James Schultz Chief Counsel NHTSA

On March 1, 1975 FMVSS 121 Air Brake Systems became effective. It is our understanding that the vehicle manufacturer is responsible for complying with MVSS 121. Are there any requirements pursuant directly from MVSS 121 or indirectly from general applicability of DOT safety standards, which place responsibilities upon the vehicle operator to maintain or not to disconnect MVSS 121 equipment?

We are aware of the applicability of BMCS regulations upon interstate carriers and that often state legislatures and/or transportation departments often adopt Federal regulations and standards. However, clarification is desired pertaining to the implications of MVSS 121 on the vehicle operator, directly and indirectly.

James R. Greco Technical Director

ID: nht94-5.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 8, 1994

FROM: Kenneth Sghia-Hughes -- Research Engineer, Solectria Corporation

TO: Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 2/2/95 from Philip R. Recht to Kenneth Sghia-Hughes (A43; Part 301; Std. 102)

TEXT: Dear Sir/Madam:

Solectria Corporation produces electric vehicles (EV's) on the chassis of existing new vehicles and is currently developing a ground-up electric vehicle. In the course of reviewing NHTSA's regulations covering vehicle manufacturers, we have identified qu estions regarding the application of specific standards and regulations to our electric vehicles. Solectria Corporation requests a formal interpretation of these regulations with regard to the following issues:

1. 49 CFR 571.301, FMVSS #301 -- Fuel system integrity

Opinions vary as to the applicability of this standard to electric vehicles with no petroleum-based fuel source. The stated purpose of the standard is "to reduce deaths and injuries occurring from fires that result from fuel spillage. . . . and resul ting from ingestion of fuels during siphoning." The standard states that it applies to "passenger cars, and to multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses that have a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less and use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F. . . . .", implying that it applies to all passenger vehicles, but to only those trucks with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less and that use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F. On the face of it, this standard appears not to apply to electric veh icles with no liquid fuel, but enough doubt as to NHTSA's interpretation of this standard with respect to EV's exists that Solectria requests an official interpretation from NHTSA.

2. 49 CFR 571.102. FMVSS #102 -- Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect

This standard is written so that it literally only applies to vehicles with manual or automatic transmission. Most of our vehicles delivered to date and all of the models currently in production have a single speed transmission which requires no shif ting, either manual or automatic. Solectria vehicles nevertheless meet the requirements of this standard for automatic transmission vehicles, in keeping with what Solectra believes is the intent, if not the letter, of the regulation. Solectria requests a clarification of this standard with regard to single speed transmissions, as commonly encountered in electric vehicles. If deemed applicable to single speed transmission vehicles. Solectria requests that S3.1.3 Starter interlock, be rewritten or inte rpreted to include the initial activation of EV motor controllers as well as engine starters.

Please feel free to contact me for any additional information.

Sincerely,

ID: nht92-3.43

DATE: 09/23/92

FROM: THOMAS D. PRICE -- PRESIDENT, STRAIT-STOP MANUFACTURING CO., INC.

TO: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-25-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO THOMAS PRICE (A40; STD. 121)

TEXT: Strait-Stop Manufacturing Company, Inc. has developed, tested and is marketing a product line of noncomputerized antilock braking assist systems for air brake, electric brake, air over hydraulic brake and vacuum/hydraulic brake installations on trucks and trailers. We responded to the agency's questionaire on rulemaking for ABS, Docket No. 92-29; Notice 1, in August this year.

As we have proceeded on our marketing program, we have encountered some confusion and misunderstanding regarding the role of the DOT and the NHTSA with respect to the ABS products available today. The most common question we have encountered is, "Are you certified or approved by DOT or NHTSA?". We have responded that the federal regulators neither approve nor disapprove any specific ABS product. Often our response is considered in error and self-serving.

In the development of our product line we have been highly cognizant of our responsibility to avoid any adverse effect which might jeopardize any vehicle's compliance with FMVSS 121, FMVSS 106 or any other safety standards with which we are familiar.

Would you please respond to the above by specifying the NHTSA policy regarding approval, disapproval, or certification of any particular ABS product? Secondly, in view of the scope of our product line, indicated in the first paragraph, would you please provide us with a listing of the various standards and regulations with which we should be conversant? And lastly, would you please delineate the obligation of an OEM, an alterer of a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, and an installer of an ABS device on a used or in use motor vehicle as regards its satisfaction of requirements of all applicable safety standards?

Due to the ease of installation of our products on after market vehicles, our primary market is the retrofit category. As currently indicated, the new regulations, which are yet to be formulated and proposed, will address only new vehicles manufactured after the effective date of the standards. However, it is our desire and intent that our product line will meet or exceed the prescribed performance standards. At the present time our test and performance statistics indicate that vehicles equipped with our products not only meet all performance standards, but also significantly reduce vehicle operating costs.

Please let me know how we may secure or have access to a copy of the complete Docket Number 92-29; Notice 1, including the responses submitted and made a part thereof?

ID: nht92-4.20

DATE: 09/02/92

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

TO: ADMINISTRATOR -- NHTSA

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-03-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO JAMES A. WESTPHAL (A40; STD. 121)

TEXT: The purpose of this letter is to seek clarification as to which Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for brake systems must the vehicles described herein comply.

Oshkosh Chassis Division of Oshkosh Truck Corporation is a manufacturer of incomplete vehicles (chassis less cab). The chassis being addressed in this letter are sold to manufacturers who complete and sell the vehicles as "motor homes". The chassis for which we are requesting clarification are the "X" and "V" models both of which are over 10,000 pounds GVWR but no larger than 26,000 pounds GVWR.

We plan to install brake systems in these two models which use compressed air to provide braking power, and hydraulic fluid to transmit the energy to the hydraulically activated disk brakes at each wheel. This system is commonly known as "air-over-hydraulic" brakes. Please refer to the attached diagram showing the service brake system logic. The air components of the system include an air compressor and pressure governor, air dryer, air reservoirs, service brake control (treadle) valve, parking brake control valve and spring applied/air release parking brake chamber, and piping/valves/gauges/switches as required. Energy from the compressed air is transmitted to the hydraulic fluid through two air/hydraulic converters (brake boosters). The converter/booster increases the output hydraulic pressure approximately 16 times greater than the input air pressure. The hydraulic components of the system include disk brakes at each wheel, fluid reservoirs, and piping between the air hydraulic converters and disk brakes. Split service brake systems will be used.

Please answer the following compliance questions concerning the vehicles and brake system described above:

1. Must the brake system comply with the requirements of FMVSS 121 applicable to trucks?

2. Must the brake system comply with requirements of FMVSS 105 applicable to multipurpose passenger vehicles?

3. If SS121 compliance is required must the hydraulically powered disk brakes comply with Section S5.4 Service brake system-dynamometer tests?

4. If compliance to parts of both SS121 and SS105 is required must the system meet the requirements of SS105 Sections S5.1.2 Partial failure, S5.1.3 Inoperative brake power assist or brake power unit, and/or S5.3 Brake system indicator lamp?

Thank you for your consideration and response to these questions.ATTACHMENTS (TEXT AND GRAPHICS OMITTED.)

ID: nht76-1.49

DATE: 12/08/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Kelsey-Hayes Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Kelsey-Hayes' April 21, 1976, question whether motor vehicle rims that are labeled in conformity with the requirements of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, may be installed on passenger cars.

The requirements of S5.2 of Standard No. 120 for labeling of rims for use on multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, and motorcycles do not affect the use of those rims on passenger cars. This situation would change if Standard No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims, is modified in the future to prohibit one or more of the items required by S5.2, but such an eventuality is considered to be unlikely.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

KELSEY-HAYES COMPANY

November 9, 1976

Frank Berndt -- Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

RE: Request for Interpretation: FMVSS-120

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We requested an interpretation on this safety standard in April, 1976 and have not yet received a reply. A copy of my April 21 letter is enclosed for reference.

May we hear from you soon on this matter? We have some pressing business decisions to make.

Very truly yours,

John F. McCuen

enclosure

KELSEY-HAYES COMPANY

April 21, 1976

Frank Berndt -- Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration RE: Request for Interpretation - FMVSS-120 Non-Passenger Car Rims

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Kelsey-Hayes Company is a domestic manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment including rims for passenger car, truck, and other vehicle applications.

We make some rims that are used for both original equipment passenger cars and original equipment recreational trailers. As we understand the provisions of FMVSS-120, such a rim, when manufactured and sold for use on a trailer, must conform to FMVSS-120. It is not clear, however, whether rims conforming to FMVSS-120 may also be used on new passenger cars.

We envision circumstances under which a rim marked in conformance with FMVSS-120 is inadvertently shipped to a passenger car assembly plant for use on a new passenger car. We seek your interpretation of whether or not a manufacturer of passenger cars may use rims conforming to FMVSS-120. Assuming there is a safety benefit to the marking of rims for use on vehicles other than passenger cars, we assume those benefits are comparable when the same rim is used on a passenger car. This apparent benefit would seem to outweigh the costs associated with segregating identical wheels as a factor of the customers to whom we ship them to.

Accordingly, (Illegible Words) which would enable us to sell (Illegible Words) to FMVSS-120 for original equipment passenger car applications.

Very truly yours,

John F. McCuen

ID: nht78-2.49

DATE: 01/05/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Kelsey-Hayes Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Kelsey-Hayes' September 2, 1977, request to know whether Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, allows a burnish of the brake friction elements immediately prior to the parking brake tests of S5.6, and whether the service line air pressure limitation of 100 p.s.i. specified in S5.4.2.1 can be exceeded monentarily.

A burnish prior to the parking brake test is not permitted by Standard No. 121, except that S6.1.8 specifies burnish of the parking brake friction elements before testing in those cases where the parking brake system does not utilize the service brake friction elements. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) would consider a provision to deal with the condition of the brake linings prior to the parking brake test upon receipt of technical data showing justification for such an action.

Section S5.4.2.1 of the standard specifies a procedure that states "[the] service line air pressure shall not exceed 100 p.s.i. during any deceleration." You describe a condition in which the service line pressure exceeds 100 p.s.i. for a short period (typically 0.1 seconds), which might be traced to characteristics of the friction material, brake mechanism, dynamometer, or instrumentation.

The NHTSA recognizes that peak pressure may be momentarily increased by the initial rush of air pressure into the brake chamber, or by other anomolies. In the case of such momentary pressure increases, the NHTSA interprets S5.4.2.1 to mean that the source of air pressure for applying the brake must never exceed 100 p.s.i. Thus, it would be permissible to experience momentary pressures above 100 p.s.i. in the service line as long as the pressure source never exceeds that level. Sustained periods of pressure above 100 p.s.i. would not be permissible.

SINCERELY,

KELSEY-HAYES COMPANY

September 2, 1977

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

RE: Request for Interpretation FMVSS-121, Air Brake Systems @ 5.3.1 Stopping Distance-Trucks and Buses

Kelsey-Hayes Company, a domestic manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment including antilock systems, requests an interpretation of the above referenced section of Standard 121.

It is the nature of newly manufactured braking systems to have residual coatings of various materials deposited upon the brake components together with surface irregularities as a result of the manufacturing process.

FMVSS-121, as well as FMVSS-105, allow for this by providing burnish stops to remove foreign substances and to condition brake linings at the outset of the testing sequence. In addition to the initial burnish, some test procedures including FMVSS-105 specify burnishing at specific intervals during the test.

Reburnishes at specific intervals are provided in recognition of the fact that a rapid series of test stops will generate high temperatures and cause surface glazing on the brake lining material. To accurately gauge the effectiveness of the braking system, FMVSS-105 allows the brakes to be reburnished before the parking brake test. While perhaps not intended by FMVSS-105, the snub burnish procedure has the effect of paralleling actual vehicle use as it is normal to expect a driver to apply the service brakes in a routine fashion prior to parking the vehicle. No identical language appears in FMVSS-121, although Table 1-Stopping Sequence does provide for a burnish in its initial step.

The authors of FMVSS-105 recognized the abnormal conditions which develop during the harsh testing sequence. Further, they recognized that lining surface glazing will impair the holding characteristics of a braking system, perhaps to the extent that an otherwise completely adequate design will fail this standard for an unintended reason.

It is with these thoughts in mind that Kelsey-Hayes Company respectfully requests an interpretation by the NHTSA as to whether step 1 of Table 1 of FMVSS-121 will allow a burnish of the parking brakes immediately prior to step 5-parking brake test.

Thank you for your consideration.

David M. Thompson

ID: nht74-2.42

DATE: 08/07/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Royal Industries

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 23, 1974, question concerning the certification responsibility of a small manufacturer of trailers that must conform to Standard No. 121, Air brake systems. You ask if road testing of any or all vehicles produced would be necessary to satisfy the requirements.

A manufacturer must "exercise due care" in certifying that the vehicles manufactured by him comply with the applicable standards (National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, @ 108(b)(2), 15 U.S.C. @ 1392(b)(2)). What constitutes due care in a particular case depends on all relevant facts, including such things as the time to elapse before a new effective date, the availability of test equipment to small manufacturers, the limitations of current technology, and above all the diligence evidenced by the manufacturer.

A small manufacturer of standard and custom trailers might fulfill his due care responsibility to assure that each of his trailers is capable of meeting the standard in several ways. For example, he could establish categories of models which share a common brake and axle system and certify them all on the basis of tests on the most adverse configuration in the category. Calculations should be written down in such a case to establish that reasonable care was taken in these decisions.

Alternatively, joint testing might be undertaken with a trade association or with a major supplier of brake and axle components. In the case of standard models, you might be able to rely on the supplier's warranty of his products' capacities.

Neither of these methods would require road testing of each vehicle manufactured, nor would every model have to be road tested. A manufacturer must simply satisfy himself that the trailer is capable of meeting the stopping performance requirements if it were tested by the NHTSA.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

PEERLESS DIVISION ROYAL INDUSTRIES

July 23, 1974

Chief Council -- National Highway Safety Administration

Dear Sir:

This concerns a recent telephone conversation between Loretta Carlson of the National Highway Safety Administration in Seattle and myself.

As a custom trailer manufacturer, we seldom manufacture any number of trailers of the axact same model. While we may build saveral trailers a year to perform the same job, there could be sufficient change from order to order that could conceivably classify them as different models.

My question of her was whether or not we, as a custom commercial trailer manufacturer, would be required to road test all models of trailers that we build to meet the requirements of FMVSS121.

Loretta Carlson talked to your office and relayed your answer to me in that for a manufacturer to satisfy the requirements of FMVSS121, he has to exercise due care to certify his equipment as meeting the requirements of FMVSS121.

Also, your office felt that if we road tested a trailer that we felt would be the worst configuration to meet the requirements of FMVSS121, then we could be considered as exercising due care.

I am very grateful for the assistance of Loretta Carlson and would greatly appreciate a letter from your office confirming your conversation with her on this matter.

C. J. Baker -- Research & Development Engineer

ID: 1984-2.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/09/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Maryland State Department of Education

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 20, 1984, letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), concerning the Federal school bus safety standards administered by this agency. You asked three questions regarding passenger seating in school buses and the classification of vehicles as school buses.

Specifically, your questions asked:

(a) There are 9 students plus the driver, for a total of 10 people, in a school bus. For purposes of the definition of a school bus, is the driver a passenger?

Section 571.3 of the Code of Federal Regulations defines a "school bus" as a bus that transports children to or from school or related events. Our regulations further define "bus" as a vehicle designed for carrying more than 10 persons. The driver is considered a "person" under our regulations. Thus, it may be useful to remember that any vehicle that carries more than 10 persons is a bus. Your vehicle which seats 9 students plus the driver, for a total of 10 persons, would not be considered a school bus.

(b) If a van is originally designed for 11 passengers plus a driver and, because of the definition of a school bus, the school system desires to alter the number of seat spaces by removing seats so that the van will accommodate 9 pupils plus the driver, will this alteration in any way conflict with the definition of vehicle capacity? (I would assume that any structural changes would place liability in the event of accident attributable to that alteration on the local school system making the change.)

In asking whether the alteration will "conflict with the definition of vehicle capacity," we assume that you are asking whether removing the seats of the vehicle changes the classification of that vehicle as a bus. Your letter is not clear whether it is a dealer who will be modifying the vehicle prior to its sale to the school system, after its sale to the school system, or whether the school itself will be modifying the bus after purchasing the vehicle. We will address these situations in our answer.

Altering an 11-passenger van by removing some of its seats so that it would no longer be of a passenger capacity that would classify it as a bus is, in theory, permissible. If a dealer makes such a modification before the vehicle is sold to you, it must attach an alterer's label in accordance with Part 567.7, Certification, of our regulations. Since the dealer would be changing the vehicle type from a bus to a multipurpose passenger vehicle, it must make sure that the vehicle complies with all of the standards applicable to that new vehicle type. This might be difficult since some different standards apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles than apply to buses.

If the modifications to the vehicle are made by a business such as a garage after you purchase the vehicle, the persons modifying the vehicle must not knowing render inoperative the compliance of your vehicle with any applicable safety standard. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses from rendering inoperative equipment or designs that are incorporated in motor vehicles in compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This means that a person in any of the above categories would not be permitted to destroy the vehicle's compliance with any safety standard by the removal of the seat.

The prohibition against rendering inoperative does not apply to an owner, such as a school or a state, which modifies its own vehicles. A school modifying its own vehicles need not assure that the vehicles comply with the Federal school bus safety standards. However, you are correct in assuming that your school could incur substantial tort liability in the event of an accident involving a vehicle that was not in compliance with the appropriate safety standards. This matter should be discussed with your insurance company and attorney. You should further determine whether your State law would prohibit the use of these vehicles to transport school children.

(c) On a 60-passenger school bus, all of the seats except the three rows in the front are removed. Each seat is 39 inches in width and is used to accommodate two high school pupils. The vehicle color is something other than yellow. A floor-to-ceiling barrier, with an emergency opening, is installed behind the three rows of seats. Supplies, materials, tools, equipment, etc., are transported in the rear of the vehicle with up to 12 youngsters plus the driver in the front portion. Given that all these factors exist at one time, will this vehicle be in conflict with any federal standards? If so, which ones?

There are several areas of school bus safety which could be affected by the proposed modification of the vehicle. Since the vehicle will be carrying more than 10 persons, it is categorized as a bus, and classified by its use as a school bus. A threshold issue related to the question you asked concerns, again, the possibility that removing the bus seats will render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the Federal school bus safety standards. The issue depends on whether it is a garage-type business that will be altering the bus, or the school. Modification of a safety system so that it no longer complies with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of the vehicle's manufacture would be a violation of Section 108(a)(2)(A). As discussed earlier, this prohibition does not apply to an owner, such as a school or a state, which modifies its own vehicles. A school may make any modification that it chooses to its buses. Such action does not violate the Vehicle Safety Act or render the school subject to any penalty under the Act.

However, as you know, private liability might occur if the modifications took the vehicle out of compliance with the safety standard and a student was subsequently injured in one of the buses. Accordingly, the modifications you make should not negatively affect the compliance of your vehicle with the safety standards.

The removal of the bus seats does not appear likely to affect adversely your vehicle's compliance with the Federal safety standards. Those standards do not require the installation of any specific seats or any specified number of seats in school buses. Instead, the standards specify that certain requirements must be met for any seat that is installed. Therefore, if the bus complied with the requirements of the Federal school bus safety standards before its alteration, the proper removal of the seats would not affect the vehicle's compliance.

You propose to install a floor-to-ceiling barrier in the vehicle behind the three rows of seats. Your letter does not describe this barrier in detail, but states that it contains an emergency opening. We are concerned that this barrier would render the vehicle in noncompliance with the requirements for emergency exits found in FMVSS No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release.

Standard No. 217 regulates the number and size of school bus emergency exits and requires that the release mechanisms of those exits be readily accessible. The purpose of these requirements is to provide an easily operable, unobstructed school bus emergency exit. In the past, the agency has preempted a State requirement for a safety chain that would have been placed across an exit, because we viewed the chain as providing an obstruction to the opening. We have also interpreted the Standard to prohibit a ramp used for transporting the handicapped when the ramp partially blocked the rear emergency exit when it folded into the bus. Your letter did not describe in detail the floor-to-ceiling barrier in your bus and we are unable to form an opinion as to the compliance of the altered vehicle with Standard No. 217. However, if the barrier provides an impediment to the emergency exit then the alteration might conflict with FMVSS No. 217. Further, if the barrier conflicted with Standard No. 217, then it could not be added as aftermarket equipment by any manufacturer, dealer, or repair business, without rendering inoperative the compliance of the bus with the safety standard.

Finally, you indicated that the school bus would be a color other than yellow. Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17 formerly permitted school vehicles carrying 16 or less students to or from school (i.e., "Type II" school vehicles) to be marked, painted, and lighted in one of two ways. The buses could be either marked, painted, and lighted as school buses, or marked, painted, and lighted differently than school buses. However, all school buses now must have the lighting of a school bus required under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Since all school buses must have the lighting of a school bus, under Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17 they also must have the painting and marking of a school bus.

SINCERELY,

MARYLAND STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

March 20, 1984

Frank Berndt, Esquire Chief Counsel, NHTSA NHTSA NTS-31 U.S. Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Berndt: In reviewing CFR 49 (definition of a school bus), the information which you provided recently to school bus contractors in Wisconsin, and Section 201 of Public Law 93-492, I confess I am confused as to who are the passengers on a school bus.

One of my specific questions, I believe, concerns whether the driver is considered as a passenger in a school bus. Below are several situations for which I would like clarification.

(a) There are 9 students plus the driver, for a total of 10 people, in a school bus. For purposes of definition of a school bus, is the driver a passenger?

(b) If a van is originally designed for 11 passengers plus a driver and, because of the definition of school bus, the school system desires to alter the number of seat spaces by removing seats so that the van will accommodate 9 pupils plus the driver, will this alteration in any way conflict with the definition of vehicle capacity? (I would assume that any structural changes would place liability in the event of accident attributable to that alteration on the local school system making the change.)

(c) On a 60-passenger school bus, all of the seats except the three rows in the front are removed. Each seat is 39 inches in width and is used to accommodate two high school pupils. The vehicle color is something other than yellow. A floor-to-ceiling barrier, with an emergency opening, is installed behind the three rows of seats. Supplies, materials, tools, equipment, etc., are transported in the rear of the vehicle with up to 12 youngsters plus the driver in the front portion. Given that all these factors exist at one time, will this vehicle be in conflict with any federal standards? If so, which ones?

I have tried to be as specific as possible in the details provided, but it may well be that further amplification on my part is necessary. Please do not hesitate to call me at (301) 659-2602 so that we might discuss the matter before you reply.

Thank you very much for your cooperation. I look forward to hearing from you very soon.

Wm. Richard Alexander, Chief Pupil Transportation Section