ID: aiam0665

Dear Mr. Kennel: This is in reply to your letter of March 10, 1972, in which yo presented a series of questions concerning the meaning of several requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, 'Air Brake Systems.' Our reply deals with the questions in the order you asked them.; >>>1. Your first question concerns the meaning of the statement i section S5.4 that 'a brake assembly that has undergone a road test pursuant to S5.3 need not conform to the requirements of this section.' To parahprase (sic) your question, the quoted language means that if a given brake assembly is subjected to the road test, the same brake assembly with the used lining need not conform to the dynamometer requirements. Conformity to the dynamometer requirements will be determined by testing an identical brake assembly with new linings. The petitions for deletion of dynamometer testing would have made the road test the only test. The standard requires both tests, even though two sets of identical brakes will be used, and our statement that the petitions were denied is therefore correct.; 2. You point out that the measurement interval used in S5.4.1.1 fo determining average torque, which begins when a specified pressure is reached, differs from the interval specified in S5.4 for measuring deceleration, which begins with the onset of deceleration. Although we agree that you may need different instrumentation for measuring average torque and average deceleration, we do not agree that their is any conflict since average torque and average deceleration are not required to be measured at the same time. We consider the present method of measuring torque and deceleration to be the correct methods.; 3. The typographical error in section S5.4.1.1, which you hav correctly edited to read 'Repeat the procedure six times, increasing the brake chamber air pressure by 10 psi each time,' has been corrected by a revision in the March 29, 1972, *Federal Register*.; 4, 5, 6. The requirements of S5.4.2, S5.4.2.1 and S5.4.3 concernin average deceleration rates should not be understood to mean that a manufacturer, in his own testing, must test at exactly that rate. It is advisable for him to test in a manner that offers assurance that the brakes will pass when tested in the manner specified in the standard. Typically, where a test value such as 9 fpsps is specified, manufacturers tend to use more adverse values in their own testing. Under the former wording of these sections, the compliance agency could have tested brakes at decelerations higher than the specified minimum, and it would have been much more difficult for a manufacturer to ascertain his 'worst case' situation.<<<; The notice ofoposing (sic) to amend the weight conditions fo truck-tractors should be issued within the next two months.; Sincerely, E. T. Driver, Director, Office of Operating Systems, Moto Vehicle Programs;

ID: aiam2570

Dear Mr. Moore: This is in reply to your letter of April 7, 1977, asking for clarification of S4.3.1.1.1 of Standard No. 108. Your initial question of December 27, 1976, was not clear to us hence the reason my answer of March 4, 1977, caused you some confusion.; The diagram in your letter of April 7 clearly depicts the exemptio provided by S4.3.1.1.1 for the specific reasons therein, that when a clearance lamp indicating overall width is not located on the rear of a vehicle it need not be visible at 45 degrees inboard. As the only required points of photometric measurement of a clearance lamp so located are to the rear and at 45 degrees outboard, the lamp need not be visible at any point in the 45 degree arc depicted in your letter.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1516

Dear Mr. Dobbyn: Your May 1, 1974, letter to Mr. Clyde Roquemore has been forwarded t me for reply. You ask for our comments on a draft standard on crash helmets developed by the National Bureau of Standards' Law Enforcement Standards Laboratory for the National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, which was enclosed in your letter. You point out that this draft standard 'is intended for voluntary use by state and local law enforcement agencies in their equipment selection and procurement process.'; Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act o 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1392(d), provides:; >>>Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established unde this title is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the Federal Governmnent or the government of any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard.<<<; Pursuant to his statutory authority under the National Traffic an Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) established Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, *Motorcycle Helmets*, 49 CFR Part 571.218, on August 9, 1973. Since Standard No.218 establishes minimum performance requirements for motorcycle helmets manufactured for use by motorcyclists and other motor vehicle users, any differing State or municipal requirements in the form of laws or regulation applicable to the design or performance of motorcycle helmets which have a bearing on safety would be void in accordance with the preemption provision of the Act cited above.; On the other hand, if a law enforcement agency (or any other person wishes to establish higher requirements for its own procurement purposes, for helmets that nevertheless conform to Federal standards, nothing in the law would prohibit that.; I have enclosed a copy of the National Traffic and Motor Vecle Safet Act of 1966 and copies of each of the four notices issued by the NHTSA on motorcycle helmets. If I can be of any further assistance, please let me know.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1515

Dear Mr. Dobbyn: Your May 1, 1974, letter to Mr. Clyde Roquemore has been forwarded t me for reply. You ask for our comments on a draft standard on crash helmets developed by the National Bureau of Standards' Law Enforcement Standards Laboratory for the National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, which was enclosed in your letter. You point out that this draft standard 'is intended for voluntary use by state and local law enforcement agencies in their equipment selection and procurement process.'; Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act o 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1392(d), provides:; >>>Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established unde this title is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the Federal Governmnent or the government of any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard.<<<; Pursuant to his statutory authority under the National Traffic an Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) established Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, *Motorcycle Helmets*, 49 CFR Part 571.218, on August 9, 1973. Since Standard No.218 establishes minimum performance requirements for motorcycle helmets manufactured for use by motorcyclists and other motor vehicle users, any differing State or municipal requirements in the form of laws or regulation applicable to the design or performance of motorcycle helmets which have a bearing on safety would be void in accordance with the preemption provision of the Act cited above.; On the other hand, if a law enforcement agency (or any other person wishes to establish higher requirements for its own procurement purposes, for helmets that nevertheless conform to Federal standards, nothing in the law would prohibit that.; I have enclosed a copy of the National Traffic and Motor Vecle Safet Act of 1966 and copies of each of the four notices issued by the NHTSA on motorcycle helmets. If I can be of any further assistance, please let me know.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel

ID: nht78-2.17

DATE: 06/08/78

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

TO: Chrysler Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 4, 1978, to Howard Dugoff requesting confirmation of two interpretations of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You have cited our letter of December 29, 1976, to your Mr. Weil as support for your views.

With respect to your first concern, you have stated your understanding that in a multiple compartment taillamp the manufacturer has the option of using one or more compartments to meet the minimum photometric requirements specified for taillamps, but when the intensity ratio of the turn signal lamp to the taillamp is computed, the ratio must be determined with all taillamp compartments lighted.

As we interpret Standard No. 108's requirements for taillamps (SAE Standard J585d, Tail Lamps (Rear Position Light), August 1970), a single compartment lamp may be used as a taillamp, but if a multiple compartment lamp or multiple lamps are used to meet the photometric requirements, S3.1 of J585d requires that the combination of the compartments or lamps must be used to meet the photometric requirements for the corresponding numbers of lighted sections (Table 1, J585d) in those instances where the distances between filament centers do not exceed 22 inches for two-compartment or lamp arrangements, and 16 inches for three compartment or lamp arrangements. If these distances are exceeded, each compartment or lamp must comply with the photometric requirements for one lighted section. Therefore your interpretation is incorrect that a manufacturer may use only one compartment of a multi-compartment lamp when considering compliance with the photometric requirement for taillamps.

Your second concern is the requirement for multiple lamps in excess of three. You have noted that Table 1 of SAE J585 makes no provision for candlepower requirements where there are more than three lighted sections. Noting that the maximum candlepower permissible rises in increments of 5 per section (15 for one section, 20 for two sections, 25 for three sections) you have asked for confirmation of your opinion that "it appears logical that the allowable candlepower for a four compartment system should be 30 candlepower."

Standard No. 108 does not specify requirements for compartments or lamps in excess of three. If you wish to use a four compartment or lamp system you are legally free to distribute the candlepower as you deem appropriate. Accordingly we have no objection to your belief that 30 candlepower is allowable provided that the multiple compartment lamp or multiple lamp arrangement meets all other requirements of J585d.

SINCERELY,

CHRYSLER CORPORTION May 4, 1978

Howard Dugoff Deputy Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Dugoff:

Re: MVSS 108 - Requirements for Multiple Cavity Tail Lamps or Multiple Tail Lamps

The NHTSA provided interpretations of certain requirements of MVSS No. 108 as applied to photometric test requirements for multiple cavity and multiple lamp configurations in a letter of December 29, 1976. Our further review of MVSS No. 108 has uncovered two additional points pertaining to tail lamps on which we would appreciate your advice.

I. Photometric Requirements

MVSS No. 108 incorporates by reference SAE Recommended Practice J585d which specifies the photometric requirements for tail lamps. Paragraph 3.1 of SAE J585d provides that multiple compartment lamps (or multiple lamps) may be used to meet the photometric requirements for a tail lamp. Additionally, paragraph 3.1 describes how multiple compartments or multiple lamps are to be treated if they are in fact used to meet the photometric requirements for a tail lamp.

Our understanding of these requirements is that the manufacturer has the option to use one or more compartments of a multi-compartment lamp (or one or more lamps of a multiple lamp system) to meet the photometric requirements specified. In cases where the manufacturer uses only one compartment of the lamp to meet the photometric requirements for a tail lamp, compartments or lamps not used are considered as "supplemental lamps" and are not required to meet test requirements except for the differential values discussed in the next paragraph.

The above is consistent with your letter of December 29, 1976 that stated that the NHTSA interprets MVSS No. 108 as requiring that the ratio of the turn signal lamp to the tail lamps must be computed with all the lamps lighted when multiple compartment and multiple lamp configurations are used. Such a requirement, of course, maintains the differentiation between the turn signal and the tail lamps.

The net result of the above as we interpret the regulation is that where there is a multiple compartment tail lamp (or where there are multiple tail lamps) it is necessary to measure the output of all tail lamps in determining the ratio between tail lamp intensity and turn signal intensity. However, it is permissible to use only one compartment of a multi-compartment lamp (or one lamp from a multiple lamp system) when considering compliance with the photometric requirements for tail lamps; other lamps or compartments would be merely "supplemental."

II. Multiple Lamps in Excess of Three

Section 3.1 of SAE J585d further provides that if one or more lamps of a multiple compartment lamp (or multiple lamps) is used to meet the prescribed photometric requirements for tail lamps the maximum candlepower for the combination of all the compartments (or lamps) must not exceed those set forth in Table 1 of SAE J585d for the corresponding number of lighted sections. The candlepower values specified in Table 1 are 15 for a one lighted section, 20 for two lighted sections, and 25 for three lighted sections. Use of lamps with four or more compartments or lamps are not prohibited. However, the Table does not contain a progression of maximum candlepower values for lamps with additional compartments beyond three. While not specified in the standard, in keeping with the progression of higher values in the Table for one, two, and three compartment lamps, i.e., 15, 20, and 25 candlepower, it appears logical that the allowable candlepower for a four compartment system should be 30 candlepower.

We would appreciate your confirmation of our interpretation of these provisions of MVSS No. 108 set forth in Section I and Section II above.

Thank you for your assistance.

R. O. Sornson Manager Environmental Relations

ID: nht79-4.36

DATE: 11/01/79 EST

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America Inc.

COPYEE: KENNETH ADAMS

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of September 25, 1979, requesting an interpretation of the term "restraint system type" as contained in Table I of S4.5.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115. In addition, this is in confirmation of Volkswagen's statement of the conclusions reached in the meeting with Messrs. Carson, Parker and Schwartz of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

The agency has carefully considered your request that "restraint system type" not be interpreted to require a distinction between active and passive belt systems. The agency must deny your request. As the introduction of mandatory passive restraints approaches, information concerning restraint system type is of exceptional importance to the agency. It is important not only to evaluate the overall effectiveness of passive restraints, but also to determine the effectiveness of the various types of passive restraint system types. Consequently, it is necessary that passive belt systems be differentiated from other restraint system types by decoding the vehicle identification number (VIN).

The agency has also considered the alternative Volkswagen suggested which is to submit this information separately to the agency on a magnetic tape. Motor vehicle safety research is carried out by many organizations aside from the NHTSA, however, and Standard No. 115 is intended to make information available to these other researchers as well. Consequently, the agency can not accept the alternative you suggest.

As regards to other questions raised in the meeting with NHTSA staff, this is to confirm that paragraphs 2 through 4 of our November 20, 1978, letter remain the position of the agency despite the changes in Standard No. 115 since that time. A copy of that letter is enclosed. Likewise, the agency can confirm that the World Manufacturer Identifiers assigned to Volkswagen by the Society of Automotive engineers fulfill the requirements of S6.1 of Standard No. 115.

As requested, the agency has reviewed the VIN format Volkswagen intends to utilize (attachments 2-4 of this letter) and has determined that it meets the requirements of the standard. As explained at the meeting, specific details concerning an engine need not be encoded so long as the information is available from the manufacturer and different engine types can be differentiated by means of the VIN (S4.5.2).

Volkswagen also pointed out to the agency at the meeting that the first eight characters of the VIN for a particular model might remain the same for several model years, although the characteristics of the vehicle which they codify might change from model year to model year. For example, a 1981 Dasher might have a different engine than a 1982 Dasher, yet that part of the VIN which contains this information would remain the same. This is authorized by Standard No. 115, so long as the correct information for each model year is submitted to the agency.

Volkswagen also asked at the meeting what the correct procedure would be for submitting information to the agency concerning vehicles whose line is not subdivided into several series. In this instance, indicate that the line and series are the same. However, even if the series is not divided into more than one body type, this body type must be reported to the agency (S4.5.2). The engine displacement may be indicated in cubic centimeters, and the horsepower in H.P. SAE net (3). If only one engine make is used, this information must be submitted to the agency, but need not be directly reflected in the VIN (S6.3).

Volkswagen has also asked when information concerning vehicles imported into the United States must be submitted to the agency. Manufacturers of imported vehicles are required to report VIN codes 60 days before the vehicles are imported into the United States to comply with S6.2.

The agency is considering the petitions of a number of manufacturers to establish engine horsepower groupings for reporting purposes and to establish a flexible effective date for vehicles whose model year begins between September 1, 1980 and December 31, 1980. We expect to respond shortly to the petitions.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

SEPTEMBER 25, 1979

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

Dear Mr. Berndt:

On September 8, 1978 representatives of Volkswagen of America, Inc. and Volkswagenwerk AG met with Messrs. Carson, Erickson, Parker and Schwartz of the NHTSA to discuss Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 115, Vehicle Identification Number (VIN). In that meeting an interpretation of "restraint system type" was brought up. It was suggested by Mr. Schwartz that Volkswagen submit a formal request for interpretation. Accordingly, this letter is a formal request for interpretation of the term "restraint system type" contained in paragraph S4.5.2, Table I of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 115, (VIN).

VW is currently in the process of finalizing the VW system of coding the VDS section of the VIN. The concern is that additional expense would be involved at Volkswagen of America if the term "restraint system type" were interpreted as requiring a distinction between active and passive belt systems.

As you may be aware, the VW passive belt system is currently offered as standard equipment on the Deluxe version of the Rabbit. Accordingly, the designation of Deluxe Rabbit in the VIN will automatically identify the majority of VW vehicles equipped with passive belts. In addition, the passive belt system is offered as an option on the Custom model of the Rabbit. In this case the option information is difficult to access by the computer. This effort will require an additional 10 hours/month computer time to determine if the Rabbit Custom is equipped with the passive belt system.

A more efficient way is available to identify VW vehicles equipped with the passive belt system. VW is proposing that in lieu of identifying the passive belt system in the VIN, a computer tape be submitted to the NHTSA on a semi-annual basis with all pertinent information pertaining to all VW vehicles sold within the United States that are equipped with the passive system. Supplying this type of information would be more efficient and more convenient for the NHTSA than coding the passive belt option in the VIN.

We request your interpretation and opinion on this proposal as soon as possible since finalizing the VIN coding is nearing completion. For any additional details on this request, please contact Mr. Charles A. Preuss at (313) 588-5505.

Best regards,

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.;

Dietmar K. Haenchen -- Administrator, Vehicle Regulations

ID: aiam2565

Dear Mr. Kreutziger: This responds to your March 15, 1977, letter asking whether the hea and knee form impact requirements of Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*, apply to the stanchion post and cross bars installed in your buses.; School buses with gross vehicle weight ratings of 10,000 pounds or les are not required to have restraining barriers as mandated in S5.2 of the standard for larger buses. Therefore, there is no requirement that you install stanchions, cross bars, or panels in the buses you manufacture. Should you choose to install these devices, they would not be required to be as wide as the seat. Similarly, there would be no requirement pertaining to forward or rearward movement of these devices.; The leg protection zone as defined in S5.3.2 of the standard i measured with reference to seat backs and restraining barriers. Since the devices you mention are not considered as either seat backs or restraining barriers, the leg protection zone requirements do not apply.; The head protection zone requirements, on the other hand, apply to an contactable surface located within the zone defined in S5.3.1 of the standard. Since part of the stanchion to which you refer creates a contactable surface within the head protection zone, it must meet the requirements of the standard specified in S5.3.1.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1770

Dear Mr. Negro:#This responds to your December 30, 1974, questio whether the requirements if S5.3.2 of Standard No. 105/75, *Hydraulic brake systems*, would be satisfied by the use of a 4- to 8-second activation of the brake indicator lamp, activated when the ignition switch is placed in the 'on' position. S5.3.23 requires:#>>>S5.3.2 All indicator lamps shall be activated as a check of lamp function either when the ignition (start) switch is turned to the 'on' (run) position when the engine is not running, or when the ignition (start) switch is in a position between 'on' (run) and 'start' that is designated by the manufacturer as a check position.<<<#A 4- to 8-second activation when the ignition switch is placed in the 'on' position as a check of brake indicator lamp function would satisfy the requirements if S5.3.2.#Yours truly,Richard B. Dyson,Acting Chief Counsel;

ID: nht91-1.45

DATE: February 19, 1991

FROM: Howard "Mac" Dashney -- Pupil Transportation Consultant, State of Michigan, Department of Education

TO: Paul Rice -- NHTSA

COPYEE: Roger L. Lynas; Richard Claflin

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-12-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Howard "Mac" Dashney (A37; VSA 1391(3); Part 571.3)

TEXT:

During the past 14 months, Michigan has experienced legislative and vehicle sales initiatives that have resulted in confusion among school districts and private fleet operators about vehicles used to transport students. On August 15, 1990, Public Act 187 (PA-187) of the Public Acts of 1990 went into effect. I have included a copy of the act. Section 10(1) states that, "A vehicle for which there are no applicable passenger protection federal motor vehicle safety standards shall not be used to transport passengers to and from school and school related events." Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors officials sent letters to their Michigan dealer networks. I have included a copy of Ford Motor Company's letter. The automobile manufacturers directed their dealers not to lease or sell certain types of vehicles to schools. They are multi-purpose vehicles with seating positions for more than 10 passengers used to transport students to and from school and related events. The Michigan Department of Education, Department, has many questions about the purchase, sale, and use of this type of vehicle.

The Department requests that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration respond to the following questions:

1. Do Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, FMVSS, apply to multi-purpose vehicles with seating positions for more than 10 passengers, passenger vans, used to transport students to and from school and related events?

2. Is it legal for automobile manufacturers or dealers to lease or sell passenger vans to school districts or private fleet operators when the purpose of those vehicles is to transport students to and from school and related events?

3. Does a school district or private fleet operator increase its liability risk if it PURCHASES passenger vans to transport students to and from school and related events?

4. Does a school district or private fleet operator increase its liability risk if it USES passenger vans to transport students to and from school and related events?

5. Are FMVSSs in effect for occupants of sedans, station wagons, or mini-vans with seating positions for fewer than 10 passengers used to transport students to and from school and related events?

6. Is it legal for automobile manufacturers or dealers to lease or sell sedans, station wagons, and mini-vans to school districts or private fleet operators for the purpose of transporting students to and from school and related events?

7. Does a school district or private fleet operator increase its liability risk if it PURCHASES sedans, station wagons, or mini-vans to transport students to and from school and related events?

8. Does a school district or private fleet operator increase its liability risk if it USES sedans, station wagons, or mini-vans to transport students to and from school and related events?

The passage of PA-187 and a restrictive vehicle sales policy have caused confusion among Michigan's school bus fleet operators. Your timely responses to the above questions will assist the Department prepare an appropriate vehicle use policy.

Please direct your response to Howard "Mac" Dashney, Pupil Transportation Consultant, Michigan Department of Education, P.O. Box 30008, Lansing, Michigan 48909.

Attachment

FORD

K. C. Magee Ford Motor Company General Marketing Manager 300 Renaissance Center P.O. Box 43318 Detroit, Michigan 48243

December 14, 1989

To: All Ford Dealers

Subject: Sale or Lease of Ford Club Wagons and Super Wagons for Student Transportation

PURPOSE

This letter is intended to help remedy confusion that apparently exists among some dealers as to what vehicles may be lawfully sold or leased for student transportation. Both Federal and state motor vehicle safety laws and regulations apply to such vehicles.

LEGAL REQUIREMENTS

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, and related regulations specify that school buses offered for sale shall meet certain unique requirements.

"School bus" is defined in the regulations as "a bus that is sold, or introduced into interstate commerce, for purposes that include

carrying students to and from school or related events, but does not include a bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation.

"Bus," in turn, is defined as "a motor vehicle ... designed for carrying more than 10 persons." 49 Code of Federal Regulations S571.3.

Units Having More Than Ten Seating Positions

Because Ford Club Wagons and Super Wagons having more than ten designated seating positions do not comply with the requirements of Federal standards specifically applicable to school buses, they should not be sold or leased for transportation of preprimary, primary, or secondary school students to and from school or related events.

For sells incomplete vehicles (Econoline Vans and Cutaways with School Bus Prep Packages and B-Series Chassis Cowls) to be completed as school buses by specialized school bus manufacturers.

Units Having Ten or Fewer Seating Positions

The Federal school bus standards do not apply to Ford 5, 7 and 8 passenger Club Wagons as these vehicles are not "designed for carrying more than 10 persons."

There may be, however, state or local regulations requiring special equipment or identification that must be satisfied before the lower capacity Club Wagons may be used for student transportation. It is the responsibility of the dealer and the purchaser to determine whether any state or local regulations are applicable.

Units for Transportation of College or University Students

Questions sometimes arise concerning sale or lease of Club Wagons and Super Wagons to colleges and universities to transport students on field trips or athletic events.

An opinion from the Office of the Chief Counsel of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator indicates that vehicles used for such purposes are not considered to be "school buses" in determining applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

However, as the opinion points out, individual states are free to regulate vehicles used to transport college and university students if they chose to do so.

Dealer Responsibilities

Because the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has indicated that it considers the seller of a vehicle to be the person most likely to know its intended use, Ford Motor Company recommends that all dealers who sell or lease a Club Wagon or a Super Wagon as manufactured by Ford Motor Company with more than 10 designed seating positions obtain for his files

a signed statement from the purchaser or lessee that the vehicle is not being purchased or leased for carrying students to and from school or related events.

If a dealer sells or leases such a vehicle and knows or has reason to know that the purchaser or lessee intends to use the vehicle as a school bus, the dealer may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per vehicle under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

As stated above, it is the responsibility of the dealer and the purchaser to determine whether any state or local regulations apply to vehicles sold or leased for student transportation.

If you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact your district office.

K. C. Magee

ID: nht87-2.65

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/11/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Richard Logan -- President, Logan Conversions, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 3, 1987, letter asking for information on installing a left side passenger door on new and used school buses. You stated that the door you wish to install would be added to the vehicle as an extra exit and you do not intend to seal or otherwise make inoperable any existing door. Installing an extra exit on a school bus is permitted by our regulations, provided that the work performed complies with our requirements for vehicle modifications. The applicable requirements for su ch modifications depend on the nature of the work performed and when it was done.

Before I begin to explain our requirements, let me clarify that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not have a process by which businesses such as yours apply to and are approved by the agency. Instead, under the National Tra ffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and NHTSA regulations, you are responsible for determining whether your vehicle modifications conform to Federal law and making the requisite certification in accordance with that determination. This "self-certification " process requires you to determine in the exercise of due care that you have met all applicable requirements.

If you install the door on a new school bus, you are considered an "alterer" of a previously certified motor vehicle. Under our requirements for alterers, set forth in 49 CFR Part 567.7 of our regulations (copy enclosed), you must certify that the vehic le, as altered, complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Among the standards applicable to the bus are our school bus safety standards, and these include Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release.

In the case of Standard No. 217, which sets emergency exit requirements, it is important whether the additional exit in question is intended to be used as an emergency exit. While we do not prohibit the installation of additional exits in school buses, this agency has long held the position that extra "emergency exits" in school buses should comply with the

2

requirements set forth in 217 for non-school bus emergency exits. If the door is not labeled or intended as an emergency exit, then Standard No. 217's requirements are not applicable.

Modifications of new or used vehicles by commercial businesses are also governed by @ 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed). This section requires Logan Conversions to ensure that the modifications it performs do not render inoperative the compliance of vehicles with Federel motor vehicle safety standards. For example, when installing the extra door, your business could not alter the seats in the school bus in a manner that would take the bus out of complian ce with Safety Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. Violations of @ 108(a)(2)(A) are punishable by civi penalties of up to $ 1,000 per violation.

I hope this information is helpful. In addition to copies of the above-mentioned documents, I have also enclosed information on how you can obtain copies of NHTSA regulations for your future reference. Please contact my office if you have further quest ions.

Sincerely,

Enclosures

ATTACH.

June 3, 1987

Erika Jones -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, CHIEF COUNSELS OFFICE

Dear Ms. Jones,

We are a major school bus company that is based in New York City and its suburbs, and operate approximately 300 vehicles.

As part of our contractual obligation to the City of New York we are required to have part of our fleet equipped with left side passenger doors, as well as the standard right side door.

We currently own and contemplate purchasing additional school buses that do not meet left side door at this time.

We are seeking the proper authorization to perform the left side door conversions in our shops, utilizing our mechanical staff. It is for this reason that I forward this information to your office for review and a response on what steps must be taken by our corporation to perform these conversions meeting all New York State and National Highway Administration requirements.

To begin with, as you are aware, we as a New York State bus contractor are govern by the rules and regulations of the Department of Transportation. In accordance with the observance of New York State D.O.T. requirements, I have brought our conversion re quest to the attention of Mr. Robert Bailey whom is the chief motor vehicle inspector for our region. It was Mr. Bailey that suggested that I forward this request to yourself, pertaining to the specific listed below.

(1) All necessary information and applications to perform the above conversions on our own vehicles as well as vehicles owned by others.

(2) All necessary information for conversions on new and used buses.

(3) All Federal requirements for the above conversions.

Enclosed is a letter from Carpenter Body Works which indicates their interest in authorizing us to do left door conversions.

Thanking you in advance for prompt attention to our request.

Very tryly yours,

Richard Logan -- President, LOGAN CONVERSIONS LTD.

cc: Robert Bailey Chief Motor Vehicle Inspector, NYC State of New York Department of Transportation

CARPENTER BODY WORKS, INC.

November 18, 1986

Logan Bus Co., Inc.

ATTN: RICHARD LOGAN

Dear Mr. Logan:

We are enclosing all of the necessary prints for the conversion of 1977 through present buses that require the left side entrance door. Parts and prices can be obtained through your local Carpenter Dealer. If we can be assured that this conversion w ill be done complete as shown on the enclosed prints, Carpenter will authorize this body design conversion.

Sincerely,

Keith Eckensberger Senior Product Engineer