ID: 2831o

Mr. Paul A. Reneau
9261 North 60th Street
Brown Deer, WI 53223

Dear Mr. Reneau:

This is a response to your undated letter which this agency received in January 1988. I apologize for the delay in this response. In your letter, you presented a schematic and an engineering explanation of a power window system design and operation, and asked whether the system meets Federal safety standard 118, Power-operated Window Systems (49 CFR 571.118). Based on my understanding of the information enclosed with your letter, it appears that your power window system would comply with Standard 118.

As I understand your system description, there are two electrical circuits that control power window operations. In the principal circuit, when the vehicle ignition key system is in the "ON" or "ACCESSORY" position, the power windows are operable. In most power-operated window systems, turning the ignition key to the "OFF" position means that the power windows no longer are operable.

However, in your system, a second, parallel circuit connects to the power window motor, and provides an energy source to allow an operator to close a power window when the ignition key is in the "OFF" position. The parallel energy source permits operation only for a limited time period controlled by the electronic circuitry. My understanding is that with your design, the parallel circuit includes door switches which stop power window operation irrespective of the ignition key system position, whenever either vehicle front door is opened during the window closing sequence. According to your diagram and explanation, in such a circumstance, an operator must close the door, and return the ignition key to the "ON" or "ACCESSORY" position to reactivate the power window system.

Paragraph S3 of Standard 118 specifies that power window systems may be closed only under certain listed conditions. One of those conditions is when the ignition key is in the "ON" or "ACCESSORY" position, as specified in S3(a). When the ignition key is in the "OFF" position, the power windows may be closed only under the conditions described in S3(b) (by muscular force unassisted by a vehicle power source), S3(c) (upon activation of a key-locking system on the exterior of the vehicle), or S3(d). Paragraph S3(d) reads as follows:

During the interval between the time the locking device which controls the activation of the vehicle's engine is turned off and the opening of either of a two-door vehicle's doors or, in the case of a vehicle with more than two doors, the opening of either of its front doors.

Based on my understanding of the information you supplied, the only time the power windows in your system can be closed with the ignition key in the "OFF" position is during the interval between engine deactivation and opening of either of the vehicle's front doors. Standard 118 expressly permits this, so your system appears to comply with that standard.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Joan F. Tilghman of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:118 d:8/26/88

ID: nht88-4.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: NOVEMBER 28, 1988

FROM: GEORGE F. BALL -- GM OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES, -- CHIEF COUNSEL-NHTSA

TITLE: PART 571.3 VEHICLE CLASSIFICATION OF THE GM 200

ATTACHMT: DECEMBER 21, 1988 LETTER FROM JONES TO BALL

TEXT: On November 21, 1988, representatives of General Motors Corporation (GM) met with you and other NHTSA personnel to review GM's bases for classifying the passenger van versions of its GM 200 minivan family as multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) under 4 9 C.F.R. Part 571.3. The purpose of this letter is to summarize that presentation and to seek your concurrence with our determination. You will recall that "GM 200" is the program designation for the entire minivan family, and that the cargo van version of that family will be classified as a truck under Part 571.3.

Pre-introduction publicity relating to this vehicle family has made reference to the GM 200 being launched from the GM "A" car platform. Although the GM 200 will share some of the "A" car front wheel drive components, the common chassis used in the carg o and passenger van versions of the GM 200 is unique from the "A" car chassis and its unique features make it more suitable for commercial usage than a passenger car chassis. In this regard, the GM 200 cargo van version and the passenger van with its re ar seats removed will have approximately 95 percent greater cargo-carrying volume than an "A" car station wagon.

With respect to pertinent definitions in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and NHTSA interpretations, the definition of "multipurpose passenger vehicle" in Part 571.3 provides that an MPV is "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." As we indicated during our meeting; the focus of our vehicle classification was based on the "truck chassis" alternative of the definition.

2

Although "truck chassis" is not defined in the regulations, the NHTSA indicated in the December 1, 1983 interpretation letter to Mazda that:

The "chassis" of a vehicle includes the vehicle's power train as well as its entire load structure. In the case of a vehicle using unibody construction, this load supporting structure would technically include the floor pan.

The fact that a common chassis is used in a family of vehicles, one member of which is classified as a "truck," is evidence that the common chassis is a "truck chassis." However, further evidence is needed to demonstrate that the chassis has truck att ributes, such as information showing the design to be more suitable for heavy duty, commercial operation than a passenger car chassis.

With these criteria in mind, GM concluded that the passenger van versions of the GM 200 minivan are appropriately classified as MPVs because the GM 200 minivan family is constructed on a "truck chassis." In this regard, "truck attributes" of the GM 200 c hassis which make it more suitable for commercial use than a passenger car chassis include:

1. An integrated ladder-type frame with full-length longitudinal rails and supporting cross-members;

2. An extended width rear axle;

3. A specific truck family powertrain certified to comply with light-duty truck emission standards, including the 11-year, 120,000 mile "useful life" requirements; and

4. A flat load floor.

As further evidence that the GM 200 chassis is a "truck chassis," a cargo van version will be marketed and sold by Chevrolet to compete in the commercial truck market. As we demonstrated during our presentation and through the review of a prototype of t he cargo van, this truck version of the GM 200 minivan family has commercial use characteristics not available in a passenger car.

3

We also showed at the November 21 meeting through an analysis performed by Failure Analysis Associates, that minivans classified as MPVs have certain similar chassis and body characteristics. In this connection, Failure Analysis Associates concluded fro m its review of the GM 200 and nine competitive MPVs that the GM 200 has a frame construction similar to these MPVs and falls within the range of chassis and body measurements exhibited by such competitive vehicles.

In summary, the passenger van versions of the GM 200 minivan family are constructed on a "truck chassis," and are, therefore, appropriately classified as "multipurpose passenger vehicles" pursuant to 49 C.F.R. Part 571.3, inasmuch as: (1) the GM 200 fami ly of vehicles uses a common chassis which has "truck attributes" which make it more suitable for commercial use than a passenger car chassis; (2) a cargo van version will be produced to compete in the commercial truck market; and (3) the physical chassi s and body characteristics of the GM 200 fall within the range exhibited by competitive MPVs.

Due to the confidential and proprietary nature of the future product information and the product comparisons included in certain slides presented at the November 21 meeting and attached to this letter, GM requests that they be afforded confidential treat ment by the NHTSA and Department of Transportation until the GM 200 family of vehicles is made available for sale to the public.

Future product plans, descriptions and comparisons of future products with competitive vehicles are "trade secrets" within the meaning of Section 1905 of Title 18 of the United States Code, entitled to confidential treatment pursuant to Section 552(b)(4) of Title 5 of the United States Code (Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act) and Section 112(e) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended and implemented in Part 512 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

The specific slides for which confidential treatment is being requested have been labeled "GM CONFIDENTIAL". The information contained in these slides is not customarily made public by GM. The disclosure to the public of GM's future product plans, desc riptions and comparisons with competitive vehicles is likely to result in significant competitive harm to GM. Furthermore, GM believes that this information falls within the "Class Determinations" in Appendix B to 49 C.F.R. Part 512 which the NHTSA has concluded would presumptively result in significant competitive damage to the submitter.

4

Pursuant to 49 C.F.R. Part 512.4(e), an affidavit in support of this assertion of confidentiality is also attached. If you should disagree with our position that these documents are entitled to confidential treatment, we would appreciate the opportunity to provide you with a further explanation and to address any concerns you may have.

We trust that the information contained in this letter and presented at the November 21 meeting will provide a sufficient basis for the NHTSA to concur with GM's determination regarding the vehicle classification of the GM 200. However, please contact m e if I can be of any further assistance to you in this matter.

Attachments

(Affidavit Omitted.)

ID: nht68-2.13

DATE: 05/27/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; David A. Fay; NHTSA

TO: Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of May 7, 1968, to Dr. William Haddon, Jr., concerning the location of intermediate side marker lamps and intermediate side reflex reflectors on narrow frame container chassis.

The location requirements for these devices, as specified in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, may be met by mounting them on the main frame of narrow frame container chassis, provided they are mounted in accordance with the enclosure to your referenced letter and are located at or near the midpoint between the front and rear side marker lamps and side reflex reflectors.

With respect to the requirements of Standard No. 108, I must point out that this Bureau does not issue approvals on items of lighting equipment or on vehicle designs incorporating this equipment. Therefore, the above comments are for your information only and in no way relieve the vehicle manufacturer from his responsibility for certifying that the assembled vehicle meets the requirements of the standard.

Thank you for writing.

ID: nht69-2.2

DATE: 05/02/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Charles A. Baker; NHTSA

TO: Reliance Trailer and Truck Company Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of March 12, 1969, to the Director of the National Highway Safety Bureau concerning your questions on mounting of clearance and identification lamps on your open top bulk commodity trailers. In response to your question no. 1, identification lamps mounted below the bottom edge of the tarp as shown on your attached marked print no. 2 appear to be in compliance with Standard No. 108. With the identification lamps to mounted the rear clearance lamps may be mounted at the extreme edge of the rear lower structure as shown on print no. 2.

The answer to question numbers 2 and 3 is that the front clearance lamps should be mounted as high as practicable to clear the bottom edge of the tarp as shown on your attached marked print no. 2.

With respect to the requirements of Standard No. 108, I must point out that this Bureau does not issue approvals on items of lighting equipment or on vehicle designs incorporating this equipment. Therefore, the above comments are for your information only and in no way relieve the vehicle manufacturer from his responsibility for certifying that the assembled vehicle meets the requirements of the standard.

ID: aiam2584

Dear Mr. Shapiro: This responds to your March 24, 1977, request for an interpretatio concerning the requirements for attachment hardware specified in Safety Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*. You ask about the force requirements that would be applicable to attachment hardware that is common to the left and right front safety belts and also common to the pelvic and upper torso restraints.; You are correct in your assumption that the subject attachment hardwar (designated part '14' in your diagram) would be required to withstand a force of at least 6,000 pounds or 2720 kilograms without fracture of any section. However, the pertinent section is paragraph S4.3(c) (2) of the standard rather than paragraph S4.4(b) (3), as you stated. Paragraph S4.3(c) (2) specifies that attachment hardware designed to receive the ends of two seat belt assemblies shall withstand a tensile force of at least 6,000 pounds. The agency concludes that the Volvo Attachment part '14' is hardware designed to receive the ends of two seat belt assemblies.; The attachment bolt, part '17,' for part '14' would be required t withstand a force of 9,000 pounds or 4080 kilograms under paragraph S4.3(c) (1) of the standard.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

ID: 1984-3.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/28/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHSTA

TO: Utilimaster Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 29, 1984, letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 207, Seating Systems, FMVSS No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, and FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

According to your letter, your company manufactures parcel delivery vans, step vans, and cargo trailers. One of your customers requested the installation of side-facing seats in the cargo area of the vehicle, and you asked whether FMVSS No. 207 and FMVSS No. 210 apply to these seats. As explained below, Standard No. 207 specifies no requirements for side-facing seats unless they have a hinged or folding back. Standard No. 210 does apply to these seats.

Standard No. 207 specifies performance requirements for seats, their attachment assemblies, and their installation, to minimize the possibility of seat failure resulting from crash forces. This standard is applicable to seats installed in vehicles including vans, but section 4.2 of Standard No. 207 excludes side-facing seats from the general seat strength requirements of the standard. However, there are other requirements in the standard which may apply to side-facing seats. For example, paragraph S4.3 requires a restraining device if the seat has a hinged or folding seat or seat back.

You asked whether side-facing seats in the cargo area are required to meet Standard No. 210. Standard No. 210 exempts side-facing seats from its strength requirements specified in S4.2, but all other requirements of the standard apply to side-facing seats. We strongly recommend that belt anchorages for side-facing seats be of at least equivalent strength to anchorages for forward and rearward facing seats, since the strength specifications are only minimum performance requirements.

You asked what kind of testing is required for side-facing seats to determine compliance with FMVSS No. 207 and FMVSS No. 210. As discussed above, side-facing seats are excluded from the performance requirements of Standard No. 207. Regarding the testing of the seats to FMVSS No. 210, a manufacturer is permitted to use whatever test procedures or method of evaluation he chooses to assure its vehicles are in compliance with this and all Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The legal requirement under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391, et seq.) is that the manufacturer exercise due care to determine that his vehicles will be in compliance with all applicable standards when tested by the agency in accordance with the test procedures specified in those standards. Whether a manufacturer has in fact exercised due care cannot be determined by the agency in advance of the actual events leading to the certification of compliance.

Your last question concerned FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. You stated that Virginia requires additional side marker lights than that required by Standard No. 108, and requested the agency to advise you on whether a state can specify more requirements than the standard. We assume that Virginia's requirement is a general one which applies to vehicles other than those procured for the state's own use.

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) states that:

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under 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 the section shall be construed to prevent the Federal Government 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 15 U.S.C. 1392(d), Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, had been established, effective January 1, 1972, as the Federal standard for lighting devices both as original and replacement equipment on motor vehicles.

You indicated in the attachment to your letter that the vehicles for which Virginia is requiring the additional side marker lamps are less than 30 feet in overall length. Section S4.1.1.3 of Standard No. 108 specifies that "Intermediate side marker devices are not required on vehicles less than 30 feet in overall length." Since the State standard prescribes mounting of side marking lights other than that required by the Federal standard, the State standard is preempted by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Your final question asked whether there are any States other than Virginia that have different requirements than FMVSS No. 108. In general, under Section 103(d) of the Safety Act States are prohibited from imposing safety standards applicable to the same aspect of performance governed by FMVSS No. 108. The limited exception in @103(d) allows States to promulgate requirements applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment procured for the State's own use which impose a higher standard of performance than the Federal standard. States may also regulate aspects of performance of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment which are not governed by a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. For example, there is no preemption of a State's right to specify requirements for lighting equipment, such as foglamps, not currently included in Standard No. 108.

UTILIMASTER

June 29, 1984

Frank Berndt National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt: Utilimaster is a commercial truck manufacturer of parcel delivery vans, step vans, and cargo trailers and we have some questions for you.

We have an application where the customer would like to have side-facing seats in the cargo area. Do we need to meet FMVSS 207 or 210 and what kind of testing of these seats is required?

Also, we have a question on FMVSS 108. I had a call from a Virginia dealer stating they require additional side marker lights. Can a State require more lighting and does any other State have different standards than FMVSS 108?

Dan Pugh Product Engineer

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht87-1.91

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/04/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Paul Utans

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Paul Utans Vice President Government Affairs Subaru of America P.O. Box 6000 Cherry Hill, NJ 08034-6000

Dear Mr. Utans:

This responds to your letter of April 21, 1987, concerning the Pact 581 Bumper Standard. You asked whether a vehicle equipped with a suspension system whose height is adjustable by the driver is tested at the manufacturer's engine-on and engine-off nominal design height.

On May 6, 1986, I responded to a similar request that you made for an interpretation. My letter (copy enclosed) stated that it is our interpretation that a vehicle must be capable of meeting the standard" damage criteria at any height position to wh ich the suspension can be adjusted.

Your current request for an interpretation does not provide new arguments which indicate that our earlier interpretation was incorrect. Therefore, I must reaffirm that earlier opinion.

As we indicated in the May 6, 1986 letter, we appreciate your concern that the very reason that thy adjustable height is provided (increased ground clearance and ramp angle for special operations) is partially negated by requiring bumpers to extend lo w enough to provide Part 581 protection at the elevated settings. The letter stated, however, that if the agency were to consider establishing special provisions in Part 581 for vehicles with adjustable suspension height control systems, it would need to be done in rulemaking. See section 102(c)(1) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act.

I would also note that in a meeting in March of this year, a member of my staff advised your representatives Chat your company could submit a petition for rulemaking requesting an amendment to Pact 581. The procedures for submitting a petition for rulema king are set forth at 49 CFR Pact 552. If You should submit a petition, the agency would decide whether to grant it in accordance with statutory criteria.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure

April 21, 1987 Erika Z. Jones, Esquire Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Interpretation of 49 CFR Part 581, Bumper Standard

Dear Ms. Jones:

Subaru of America, Inc. (SOA) requests an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 581, Bumper Standard, with respect to the test conditions applicable to passenger motor vehicles other than multipurpose passenger vehicles that have a suspension system whose height is driver-controllable under certain limited operating conditions.

SOA would like confirmation of its interpretation that, because height of an adjustable suspension system is not specified as one of the conditions in S581.6, compliance with the Bumper Standard is demonstrated at the manufacturer'; engine-on and engine- off nominal design height.

The Subaru air suspension system (fitted only to top-of-the-line, four-wheel-drive vehicles) maintains constant ground clearance regardless of vehicle load by adjusting the volume in each of four air springs in accordance with a signal from a vehicle hei ght sensor installed in each air spring. For driving on poor or snow-covered roads, with four wheel drive engaged, the driver may activate a switch to select a "High" suspension position offering increased ground clearance. This "High" setting is intende d for use only in special circumstances where-extra ground clearance is desirable. Having to meet the Part 581 pendulum requirements at such setting would partially negate the increased clearance intended to be provided, particularly ramp angle. When the ignition is switched to the "off" position, the suspension returns to "normal" for parking to ensure that the bumpers provide proper protection. When the ignition is switched to the "on" position, "High" ground clearance must be reselected, if desired.

SOA has no indications that its present air suspension system vehicles are being operated in the "High" position under conditions other than those intended and recommended by Subaru. (Demographics of the owners of these vehicles show more of them to be m arried, older, better educated and affluent than those of competing vehicles.)

Although the standard does not take into account load variances that can result in changes in bumper height (and therefore the level of protection provided) the Subaru system is load-compensating and therefore offers the same protection at various condit ions of vehicle loading, as well as preserves headlamp aim.

Subaru is currently studying the feasibility of certifying its MPV's as passenger cars. However, testing at the "High" ground clearance position would make it literally impossible for four wheel drive MPV's with variable height air suspension systems to meet passenger car bumper standards, in spite of the 5 mph systems new for the 1987 model year.

Should you need further information about this request, please contact Mr. Alfred Gloddeck in SOA's Washington office, telephone (202) 295-4994.

Sincerely, SUBARU OF AMERICA INC. Paul Utans Vice President Government Affairs

ID: 1985-01.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/12/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Dave Durenberger

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

ENC: Constituent's Correspondence

UNITED STATES SENATE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510

January 15, 1985

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

Dear Sir:

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

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

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

ENC.

MORA PUBLIC SCHOOLS

MORA, MINNESOTA 53051

January 7, 1985

The Honorable David Durenburger

United States Senator

Dear Senator:

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

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

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

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

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

ID: nht68-3.41

DATE: 07/22/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; David A. Fay; NHTSA

TO: Lodal, Incorporated

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of June 17, 1968, to the National Highway Safety Bureau, attention of Mr. Joseph R. O'Gorman, concerning the requirements for rear identification lamps and rear clearance lamps on your EVO Refuse Packer.

Since no mounting height restrictions are specified for rear identification lamps in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, these lamps may be mounted on or below the cross member between the rear wheels. Shielding may be necessary to protect the lamps.

No clearance lamp may be combined optically with any tail lamp or identification lamps. Combination rear clearance and side marker lamps may be used providing the requirements for each are met.

With respect to the requirements of Standard No. 108, I must point out that this Bureau does not issue approval on items of lighting equipment or on vehicle designs incorporating this equipment. Therefore, the above comments are for your information only and in no way relieve the vehicle manufacturer from his responsibility for certifying that the assembled vehicle meets the requirements of Standard No. 108.

ID: nht68-3.34

DATE: 05/14/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; David A. Fay; NHTSA

TO: Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of March 1, 1968, to Mr. Edwin L. Slagle, requesting a clarification of the location requirements for identification lamps on real trailers.

The brochures attached to your letter describe two types of reel trailers as manufactured by the Standard Trailer Company and designated as the "Reelmaster" and "Cable Winder/Stringer." These trailers are completely open in the rear with no permanently attached crossbar for mounting rear identification lamps. On these trailers, identification lamps mounted on permanently attached swinging arms which are located near the wheels of the trailers would appear to conform to the requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

With respect to the requirements of Standard No. 108. I must point out that this Bureau does not issue approvals on items of lighting equipment or on vehicle designs incorporating this equipment. Therefore, the above comments are for your information only and in no way relieve the vehicle manufacturer from his responsibility for certifying that the assembled vehicle meets the requirements of the standard.

Thank you for writing.