ID: 19392A.DRN

The Honorable Doug Bereuter
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515-2701

Dear Congressman Bereuter:

Thank you for your letter regarding child care centers that have found it difficult to purchase vehicles to transport children to and from school and school-related activities. You have forwarded a letter from Ms. Gina Dunning, Director of the Regulation and Licensure Division of the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services, on this issue. Ms. Dunning has separately written to Mr. Frank Seales, Jr., our Chief Counsel at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and Mr. Seales has replied to her successor. A copy of his letter is enclosed.

We have been working to ensure that our school bus safety program provides the safest possible vehicles for children, consistent with our statutory mandate. Among other things, we have been working with the organizations conducting after-school programs and with the vehicle manufacturers to find a satisfactory solution.

In your letter, you ask first whether the regulation pertaining to vehicles used to transport children to and from school was the product of the 1974 amendment that required the agency to issue the school bus standards. To answer, I must give you a brief background on the applicable law. The 1974 amendment, now codified as 49 U.S.C. 30125, defines a school bus as

[a] passenger motor vehicle designed to carry a driver and more than 10 passengers, that the Secretary of Transportation decides is likely to be used significantly to transport preprimary, primary, and secondary school students to or from school or an event related to school.

This definition has not changed since 1974. The current controversy arose as the result of the agency's application of this definition to specific situations involving vehicles sold to after-school programs. In two 1991 interpretations, our Chief Counsel stated that a vehicle sold to an organization providing after-school programs did not have to meet the school bus standards (letters to Vel McCaslin of Grace After School, May 29, 1991, and September 6, 1991). When the issue was raised again, in 1998, the Chief Counsel reexamined the McCaslin interpretation and concluded that it did not consider the statutory terms "to or from school" and was thus erroneous. In a letter to Don Cote of Northside Ford on July 23, 1998, the Chief Counsel concluded that it was the use of the vehicle (i.e., whether it was used to transport children to and from school), not the identity of the purchaser (i.e., whether it was a school) that determined whether the vehicle had to be a school bus. In response to a letter from the National Child Care Association, the Chief Counsel confirmed this interpretation in a letter of September 17, 1998. Copies of these letters are enclosed.

The Cote letter expressly overruled the McCaslin letter, and has had the effect of prohibiting motor vehicle dealers from selling 12-15 passenger vans that do not meet the school bus standards to any organizations that intend to use the vans to transport children to and from school. It is this prohibition that has caused Ms. Dunning and others to become concerned about the availability and cost of vehicles for these organizations.

We believe the Cote letter correctly applies the law, but we do not believe that it will have the consequences that organizations providing after-school programs have feared. The law does not affect organizations that provide custodial care and do not transport children to or from school or an event related to school. Since the law applies to dealers, not purchasers, it does not affect the ability of these organizations to continue to use the vehicles they now own, so they are not faced with the immediate need to replace their current vehicles. They can accordingly make plans to acquire vehicles that meet school bus standards on their normal replacement schedule. We would be glad to discuss these issues further with Ms. Dunning's successor and others in Nebraska.

We have examined the issues of cost and availability. Our inquiries to the vehicle manufacturers indicate that while school buses are somewhat more expensive than large vans, the difference is not so large that it should prevent after-school programs from acquiring school buses. The cost range for 15-passenger school buses is approximately $29-31,000, compared to $25-28,000 for 15-passenger vans. The leadtime required for delivery of a school bus may be two or three months longer than for a large van, but this should not present a problem for organizations that follow a systematic plan for vehicle replacement.

You expressed concern whether "children are indeed safer being transported by school buses than commercial vans," and indicated that while that might have been true in 1974, vans are safer today than they were in 1974. All motor vehicles, including passenger vans and other buses, must meet higher safety standards today than they did in 1974. Nevertheless, children are still much safer when transported by school bus, than by passenger van or passenger car. This point is illustrated in the enclosed NHTSA publication "School Bus Safety: Safe Passage for America's Children." Page 12 of the publication shows how safety is enhanced for school buses, with a table summarizing the Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses. Passenger vans are not required to meet the described safety enhancements.

Your third question asked about enforcement actions NHTSA has conducted on this issue. In response to this question, I am enclosing a NHTSA press release of March 18, 1998, describing enforcement actions taken against dealers who illegally sold or leased new vans that were used as school buses. The press release lists dealers that were sanctioned and the civil penalties assessed against each dealer. NHTSA currently is engaged in investigations of other dealers that may have sold new buses that do not meet NHTSA's school bus standards to schools.

You also wish to know whether there is a study or any evidence showing that "commercial vans" built in the past two years are safer than those built in 1974. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards have been substantially amended since 1974. As a result, passenger vans and other vehicles built today generally must meet higher safety standards than they did in 1974. Nonetheless, vehicles that meet the school bus safety requirements have safety enhancements that passenger vans do not have, such as improved crash protection requirements and better body joint strength protection.

NHTSA has a very strong focus on child safety in transportation, and, to the extent it can statutorily do so, is doing its best to facilitate school bus purchases for those child care centers that want to purchase school buses for their school-aged children. As I noted above, our information indicates that the cost difference between a 15-passenger van and a small school bus is not significant. The agency is currently seeking information to further analyze the cost issue. We are also currently working with our partners in state and local communities, and in the school bus industry, to see what can be done to reduce the time between a school bus order and its delivery.

For your information, because of the increasing number of pre-school aged children being transported by school buses and the pupil transportation community's request for guidance on how to safely transport these children, NHTSA released a February1999 Guideline for Transporting Pre-school Aged Children in School Buses. A copy of this document is enclosed for your information.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,
Ricardo Martinez, M.D.
Enclosures (4 items)
ref"VSA#571.3

ID: 77-1.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/15/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Oconomowoc Public Schools; Wisconsin

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 3, 1977, letter asking whether the new school bus definition (effective April 1, 1977) precludes the use of vans which seat less than 10 passengers from transporting children to and from school.

The Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-492) authorized the NHTSA to redefine the term "school bus" to include all motor vehicles which seat 10 or more passengers and which transport children to and from school. The NHTSA redefined the term in accordance with the wishes of Congress for the purpose of prescribing safety requirements for buses that fall within the definition. The definition does not preclude the use of vans or any other type of motor vehicle which seat fewer than 10 passengers from transporting children to and from school. Such vehicles may transport children without complying with the school bus safety requirements.

SINCERELY,

Oconomowoc Public Schools

February 3, 1977

Charles E. Duke Deputy Administrator NHTSA

Members of the Wisconsin Legislature are attempting to define a school bus to allow some flexibility for vehicle use in the under 10 passenger capacity. Senate Bill 110 was introduced on Wednesday, February 2, 1977 with the leaders attempting to push it through without opposition. The bill has many fine features with only one specific area of concern on the part o school administrators.

In place of using the term "vehicles under 10 passengers," the author stated specifically "an automobile or station wagon that is not designed or constructed as a van" may be used. This is for transportation other than transportation of children to or from school. The proponents for this measure claim the new federal regulation to be enacted on April 1, 1977 will require all states to conform to this measure. Since many schools have small vans for use in lunch delivery, mail service, and the like, they find these vehicles very useful in transporting small groups like the golf team, forensic students, and band groups and at a minimum cost.

I am enclosing the portion of Bill 110 that pertains to vehicle on use of the description. Please review the measure and provide a ruling term "vehicles under 10 passengers" in place of "an automobile or station wagon that is not designed or constructed as a van" with reference to the new federal regulation.

The chairman of the review board on legislative measures stated yesterday that he felt a hearing on Bill 110 would be held by February 15, 1977. I realize the request is on short notice but also realize that without some interpretation from your agency, we will be forced to live with a measure that will be very costly and inefficient.

Thank you for your help and assistance.

Carlyle Holtan Director of Transportation

[ENC. OMITTED]

ID: 77-1.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/02/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 16, 1976, which raises several questions with respect to motor vehicle lighting and Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

First I want to comment upon this statement:

"A NHTSA representative recently indicated that the standard applies to 'original equipment' replacement items such as lenses and lamps designed for specific year model vehicles, but does not apply to 'aftermarket' lighting equipment that is not manufactured for a particular vehicle but is sold for general use on any vehicle."

This is not entirely true. Standard No. 108 applies in pertinent part "to lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment for replacement of like equipment or vehicles to which this standard applied." The standard applies to motor vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1972. Thus, any replacement of an original equipment item specified by Standard No. 108 must meet original equipment requirements. This not only includes lenses and lamps, such as parking lamps and tail lamps designed for specific year model vehicles but also lighting equipment sold for general use, such as headlamps, clearance lamps, and identification lamps, whose dimensions do not vary over the years.

Your first question is:

"1. Some aftermarket-type manufacturers produce lamps and other devices that are shown in their catalogs for universal use with no vehicle model being mentioned. Some of these lamps may also be supplied to producers of motor homes, boat trailers, horse trailers, commercial trucks and trailers, etc., as original equipment on those vehicles. Does the fact that a portion of the production of a particular lamp is sold as replacements for the original equipment mean that the other portion sold for use on any 1976 truck or trailer is also governed by Standard No. 108 with respect to the "aftermarket" sales?"

The answer is yes, as I explained in my preliminary remarks about the applicability of Standard No. 108 to all replacement equipment.

"2. In the past, motor vehicles were equipped with round-type sealed beam units. Now that rectangular units are available, some owners are interested in converting the original round headlamps to the rectangular type. Are these rectangular sealed beam units and conversion kits sold to the user considered replacement of like equipment on vehicles to which this standard applies or are they subject to state regulations?"

We construe the words "like equipment" broadly. If one headlighting system is being replaced with another, the replacement headlighting system must meet the requirements of Standard No. 108, even though its configuration differs from that of the original. Obviously, a State may also regulate sale of this equipment if its requirements are identical with the Federal ones.

"3. Manufacturers of nonsealed, quartz-halogen headlamp units are energetically promoting the sale of the units in many areas of the country. These lamps differ considerably from the sealed beam units originally required on late model vehicles at the time of first sale. Do these lamps fall within federal jurisdiction or are they subject only to state regulation?"

Quartz-halogen headlamps sold in the aftermarket, intended as replacement for headlamps that comply with Standard No. 108, must also meet Federal requirements. If the lamps do not conform, not only would their sale be a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Section 108(a)(1)(A), but the removal of sealed beam headlamps by the seller or a motor vehicle repair shop to facilitate the installation of the nonconforming ones would also be a violation of the Act (Section 108(a)(2)(A).

"4. A number of items such as flashers, school bus warning lamps, and headlamp units are sold for universal use. They might be part of a new vehicle at time of sale or be sold separately as a replacement for vehicles manufactured both before and after 1972 or as an addition to such vehicles. Does this mean that dual regulations are permissible with NHTSA setting standards for the production items used as original equipment replacement and the states setting standards and requiring approval for the identical item for usage not regulated by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards?"

It is NHTSA's position, as explained earlier, that if an item of lighting equipment "sold for universal use" is capable of replacing equipment on a vehicle manufactured on or after January 1, 1972, then it must meet Standard No. 108, and a State may also regulate it in an identical manner.

You also asked our advice "on the problem of not being able to recognize whether a particular item has been certified or not." As an alternative to the DOT mark permitted by S4.7.2 of Standard No. 108, replacement lighting equipment may be certified in two other ways. Pursuant to Section 114 of the Act certification "may be in the form of a label or tag on such item or on the outside of a container in which such item is delivered." Thus, access by a State enforcement officer to corporate records is not required. If an item subject to Standard No. 108 is not marked "DOT," if it bears no certification label or tag, and if its container is unmarked, then it has not been certified as required.

I hope this answers your questions.

SINCERELY,

DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL

December 16, 1976

File No.: 61.A218.A3107

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The finding of the U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania against state requirements for presale approval of items of motor vehicle equipment regulated by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, if upheld, will eventually result in all states curtailing their approval programs. The question then becomes one of determining specifically which items of equipment are federally regulated.

The answer appears clear-cut with respect to equipment standards that apply to an individual item such as brake hoses, safety glazing, emergency triangular reflectors, seat belts, etc. It is not so clear with respect to the part of Standard No. 108 which applies to "lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment for replacement of like equipment on vehicles to which this standard applies". A NHTSA representative recently indicated that the standard applies to "original equipment" replacement items such as lenses and lamps designed for specific year model vehicles, but does not apply to "aftermarket" lighting equipment that is not manufactured for a particular vehicle but is sold for general use on any vehicle. It is important to us to know whether or not we may have misinterpreted the discussion.

We are investigating how best to amend our laws, regulations, and approval procedures if the Pennsylvania decision becomes binding upon all states. The following questions have arisen with respect to which items of lighting equipment are regulated by Standard No. 108 and which are not:

1. Some aftermarket-type manufacturers produce lamps and other devices that are shown in their catalogs for universal use with no vehicle model being mentioned. Some of these lamps may also be supplied to producers of motor homes, boat trailers, horse trailers, commercial trucks and trailers, etc., as original equipment on those vehicles. Does the fact that a portion of the production of a particular lamp is sold as replacements for the original equipment mean that the other portion sold for use on any 1976 truck or trailer is also governed by Standard No. 108 with respect to the "aftermarket" sales?

2. In the past, motor vehicles were equipped with round-type sealed beam units. Now that rectangular units are available, some owners are interested in converting the original round headlamps to the rectangular type. Are these rectangular sealed beam units and conversion kits sold to the user considered "replacement of like equipment on vehicles to which this standard applies" or are they subject to state regulations?

3. Manufacturers of nonsealed, quartz-halogen headlamp units are energetically promoting the sale of the units in many areas of the country. These lamps differ considerably from the sealed beam units originally required on late model vehicles at the time of first sale. Do these lamps fall within federal jurisdiction or are they subject only to state regulation?

4. A number of items such as flashers, school bus warning lamps, and headlamp units are sold for universal use. They might be part of a new vehicle at time of sale or be sold separately as a replacement for vehicles manufactured both before and after 1972 or as an addition to such vehicles. Does this mean that dual regulations are permissible with NHTSA setting standards for the production items used as original equipment replacement and the states setting standards and requiring approval for the identical item for usage not regulated by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards?

Lighting equipment subject to FMVSS No. 108 is not required to be marked in any way with the manufacturer's name or model number nor is a DOT certification symbol required. Without such markeings and symbol, neither a potential customer nor an officer inspecting devices offered for sale at retail outlets has any way of knowing whether a particular device is one that has been certified by the manufacturer as meeting the standard or whether it is a bootleg product that is locally produced or imported without complying with the standard. Neither the customer nor the officer has access to the store's records to determine whether or not the manufacturer included the federally-required certification with the shipment.

If the federal standards totally preempt the state requirements on lighting devices, manufacturers will no longer need to place any markings on their products, since the federal standards make no such requirement. It, therefore, becomes impossible for any local agency to attempt to enforce the federal standard and, in view of the limited enforcement personnel in NHTSA, it means that anyone can sell almost anything he wants with little change of being detected by NHTSA and being prosecuted by the Department of Justice.

We would appreciate your answers to the above questions and your advice on the problem of not being able to recognize whether a particular item has been certified or not.

WARREN M. HEATH Commander Engineering Section

cc: AAMVA; VESC

ID: nht80-2.42

DATE: 06/02/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Donald Boyd & Associates, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter requesting confirmation that large commercial truck tractors do not have to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance. You also asked whether large trucks should be designed to comply with the "belt system" option under Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection.

You are correct in your assumption that large commercial trucks would not have to comply with Safety Standard No. 216 since that standard only applies to passenger cars. You are also correct in stating that trucks with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds may meet the seat belt option of Safety Standard No. 208 found in paragraph S4.3.2. Under S4.3.1, manufacturers do have the option of meeting the crash protection requirements of S5 by means that require no action by vehicle occupants (with current technology this means air cushion restraints or automatic seat belts). Further, vehicles manufactured prior to August 15, 1977, were permitted to comply with Safety Standard No. 216 in lieu of the "rollover" requirements of Standard No. 208, and for large trucks this would have been a simple test to meet. However, since the vehicle would also have been required to meet the "frontal" and "lateral" requirements by automatic means if option S4.3.1 were taken, no truck manufacturers chose to comply with the "rollover" requirements of Standard No. 208 via the Standard No. 216 option. Rather, seat belts were installed on all large trucks.

SINCERELY,

DONALD BOYD & ASSOCIATES, INC. Consulting Engineers

April 22, 1980

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Roof Structure Crashworthiness Requirements for large commerciales vehicles

Dear Sir:

Based on my review of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, I have concluded that it is not necessary for manufacturers of large commercial truck tractors to comply with FMVSS roof crash resistance performance standards. However, I would like to get your opinion.

FMVSS 216 relates to passenger cars and, because of the 5,000 pound test load limitation, cannot be expected to apply to large commercial truck tractors which should experience substantially higher forces in most rollovers. Standard number 208; S4.3 applies to "trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds" and provides two options for meeting crashworthiness requirements. Realistically, however, it would seem that truck manufacturers should select one of these (the "belt system" option) because the other option (which refers back to 216 and the 5,000-pound load limitation) would not be expected to provide adequate roof structure to resist a 30 mile per hour rollover of a large commercial truck.

Therefore, I have concluded that large commercial truck tractors should be designed to comply with the "belt system" option of FMVSS 208 to provide better occupant protection and, in meeting the requirements of this option, will satisy the occupant crash protection Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for trucks manufactured prior to August 15, 1977.

I would greatly appreciate a response from you indicating whether my interpretation of these requirements is consistent with that of the Office of the Chief Counsel.

Donald E. Boyd, Ph.D., P.E.

ID: nht90-3.51

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 8, 1990

FROM: Robert Erhardt -- Senior Project Engineer, Advance Transformer Co.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-13-90 from P.J. Rice to R. Erhardt (A36; VSA Sec. 10(a)(2))

TEXT:

As you may know, we at Philips are working on the development of high intensity discharge (HID) lighting systems for use as motor vehicle headlamps. These systems promise dramatic improvements in forward illumination while using less energy in a lower p rofile (allowing more aerodynamic vehicle design).

We are now at the point in our development where we have engineering samples available that we wish to test on road vehicles and would like to be advised of the laws concerning such an undertaking. It is our intention to equip 110 private and/or company vehicles for everyday use. The test would continue indefinitely (for lifetime/reliability evaluation) and could begin as early as August 27, 1990.

If a waiver or official authorization for this type of test is necessary, please consider this a request for same.

Given the competitive nature of the market that this product is being developed for, we are interested in beginning our test as soon as possible. A response by August 27 would be greatly appreciated.

If you have any questions concerning our program please contact either our Director, Mark Fellows, or myself at Advance Transformer (708) 390-5000.

ID: nht76-4.41

DATE: 03/26/76

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

TO: Thomas A. Kirwan III - Capco

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of February 25, 1976, requesting information concerning the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations applicable to transit vehicles, specifically, Dodge vans that will be used in a rural transportation system.

The answers to your questions are as follows:

(1) "Which FMVSS apply to vans used in transit service?"

If your Dodge vans are designed to carry 10 persons or less they would qualify as "multipurpose passenger vehicles", as defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3. As multipurpose passenger vehicles, the Dodge vans would be subject to the requirements of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards listed below. The standards marked with an asterick (*) are equipment standards and do not apply to the vehicles themselves. Rather, these standards set forth requirements for manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment for use in multipurpose passenger vehicles.

No. 101 - Control Location, Identification, and Illumination.

No. 102 - Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect.

No. 103 - Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems.

No. 104 - Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems.

*No. 106-74 - Brake Hoses.

No. 107 - Reflecting Surfaces.

No. 108 - Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

No. 111 - Rearview Mirrors.

No. 112 - Headlamp Concealment Devices.

No. 113 - Hood Latch System.

*No. 116 - Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids.

No. 118 - Power Operated Window Systems.

*No. 119 - New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.

No. 120 - Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars.

No. 124 - Accelerator Control Systems.

*No. 125 - Warning Devices.

*No. 205 - Glazing Materials.

No. 206 - Door Locks and Door Retention Components.

No. 207 - Seating Systems.

No. 208 - Occupant Crash Protection.

*No. 209 - Seat Belt Assemblies.

No. 210 - Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages.

No. 211 - Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs and Hub Caps.

No. 213 - Child Seating Systems.

No. 219 - Windshield Zone Intrusion.

No. 301-75 - Fuel System Integrity.

No. 302 - Flammability of Interior Materials.

The manufacturer of the Dodge vans must affix a label to each vehicle certifying that the vehicle is in compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations, as required by 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. This certification label should be affixed to the door or door post of each vehicle, and you should check to make certain that it is present.

Please note that if the Dodge vans are designed to carry more than 10 persons, they would be classified as "buses" under 49 CFR Part 567.3, and the list of applicable safety standards would differ.

(2) "Does NHTSA recommend a set of vehicle specifications for vans used in transit?"

No. The NHTSA has issued only the requirements found in the motor vehicle safety standards and regulations.

(3) "Do any FMVSS apply specifically to modified vans (e.g. those filled with hydraulic lift for wheelchairs and a raised roof)?"

No. Such vehicles must meet the same standards as other MPV's.

(4) "Are there any regulations which apply to fiberglass bubbletops on vans in transit service?"

Yes. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, 49 CFR 571.205, specifies requirements for glazing materials for use in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Rigid plastic materials that are to be used as covers for openings in the roof of a vehicle must conform to the requirements specified in paragraph S5.1.2.1 of Standard No. 205.

(5) "Are there any regulations, perhaps within the Federal Highway Safety Act, which apply to driver qualifications?"

Yes. Driver qualifications for transit vehicles are governed by Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, 49 CFR Part 391, Qualifications of Drivers.

(6) "Could you provide any further information which you feel would contribute to the safe operation of our transit system?"

At the present time the NHTSA has not issued any general guidelines concerning the organization or operation of transit systems. You may, however, wish to contact the Urban Mass Transportation Administration of this Department for information on this subject.

I hope this letter has been responsive to your questions. Please contact us if we can of any further assistance.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

CAPCO

February 25, 1976

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Gentlemen:

The Capital Area Planning Council is in the process of implementing a rural transportation system as part of the Federal Highway Administration's Rural Highway Public Transportation Demonstration Program (Section 147 of the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1973). We are, therefore, interested in obtaining information concerning vehicle specifications and safety standards for transit vehicles.

Since our transit fleet will be entirely composed of Dodge vans rather than standard transit buses, we are uncertain as to which Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards apply specifically to vans used in transit operations. Could you assist us by providing the answers to the following questions:

1) Which FMVSS apply to vans used in transit service?

2) Does NHTSA recommend a set of vehicle specifications for vans used in transit?

3) Do any FMVSS apply specifically to modified vans (e.g. those fitted with hydraulic lift for wheelchairs and a raised roof)? 4) Are there any regulations which apply to fiberglass bubbletops on vans in transit service?

5) Are there any regulations, perhaps within the Federal Highway Safety Act, which apply to driver qualifications?

6) Could you provide any further information which you feel would contribute to the safe operation of our transit system.

Enclosed is a draft of our vehicle specifications. I would appreciate your comments and suggestions prior to March 10 so the necessary revisions may be made before our public hearings begin.

Yours very truly,

Thomas A. Kirwan III -- Transportation Planning Intern

Enclosure

Vehicle Specifications (Minimum Requirements)

1 ton - 125" wheelbase 350 cu. in. 8 cyl. engine 7400 lbs. GVW Min. Front Axle 3300 lbs., Rear Axle 5050 lbs. Automatic Transmission Power Disc Brakes Power Steering Heavy Duty Front/Rear Shock Absorbers Heavy Duty Front/Rear Springs Heavy Duty Alternator Heavy Duty Battery Heater (High Capacity) Air Conditioning (High Capacity) - 22,000 B.T.U. Slant Line or Vented Tinted Glass Windows Gauges - Oil Pressure and Ammeter Lighting Package (Door Actuated) Exterior Lighting to meet F.M.V.S.S. Insulation Package Undercoating Dual Electric Horn and Horn Bar Large Lo-Mount Side Mirrors Seat Belts for all Passengers Two Speed Electric Wipers and Window Washer Exhaust Emission Controls to meet F.M.V.S.S. and State Code High Capacity Fuel Tank Tires 8.00 x 16.5 (10 Ply Truck Type or Steel Radial) Front Stabilizer Bar Oil Filter - 1 Quart Freight, Handling, and Dealer Preparation

Modifications

Raised, Collapse Resistant Steel Roof Cap Restructured, penetration resistant sidewalls, and rear end sections Gas Tank Shield Drive Shaft Guards Passenger Door Entrance Heavy Duty Driver Door Control (manual) Entrance Door and Front Section Padding Passenger Grab Rails Two Leaf Side Door (Extended Doorway) Electric Hydraulic Lift, Expanded Metal Ramp, Semi-Automatic/Manual Override (minimum lift capacity 500 lbs.) Wheelchair Tie Downs (2 prs. mounted at 45 degrees) Rubber Non-Skid Flooring First Aid Kit 2 3/4 lbs. - 10 BC Dry Chemical Fire Extinguisher Reflector Flare Kit

ID: aiam5160

"Dear Mr. Brown: This responds to your letter of March 15, 1993 inquiring 'whether modifying the throttle controls on a school bus so that a short person can operate it would jeopardize the manufacturer's certification that a bus is in compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards' (FMVSS's). By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., Safety Act) authorizes NHTSA to issue FMVSS's that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised its authority under the Safety Act to establish Standard No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems (49 CFR Part 571.124). Standard No. 124 'establishes requirements for the return of a vehicle's throttle to the idle position when the driver removes the actuating force from the accelerator control.' The Safety Act requires each vehicle manufacturer to certify that its vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 124. This certification process requires each manufacturer to determine in the exercise of due care that its products meet all applicable requirements. If the throttle control or other equipment on the new school bus were modified by the bus manufacturer, the bus manufacturer must ensure that the vehicle meets all applicable FMVSS's, including Standard No. 124. If the throttle control or other equipment were modified on a new bus prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would probably be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle. As an alterer, that person would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the modification. (See 49 CFR 567.7.) If the modification is made after the vehicle's first sale, the only NHTSA requirement that would affect the modification is the 'render inoperative' prohibition in 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides that: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The 'render inoperative' provision would prohibit a commercial business from modifying the throttle in a manner that would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 124. If the throttle control was built up in a way that prevented the throttle from returning to idle when the driver removed his or her foot, it would violate the render inoperative prohibition. You ask whether NHTSA could grant a waiver to allow a school bus company to modify the throttle control on its vehicles. The Safety Act provides that NHTSA may by regulation exempt a person from the 'render inoperative' prohibition if the agency determines that an exemption is consistent with motor vehicle safety and the purposes of the Act. Based on the information in your letter, we believe it would be unlikely that the agency would decide that an exemption is appropriate for any modification that would prevent the throttle from returning to idle. Such an exemption would increase the incidence of engine overspeed and the likelihood of possible crashes resulting from this condition. That the vehicle is question is a school bus makes the safety concerns even more compelling. You should be aware that the 'render inoperative' prohibition only applies to the commercial entities listed in 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. Owners may modify their vehicles without violating any laws or regulations administered by this agency. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to tamper with vehicle safety equipment if the modification would degrade the safety of the vehicle. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ";

ID: aiam0513

Dear Mr. Pieratt: This is in reply to your letter of November 5, 1971 regarding the Tir Identification and Record Keeping Regulation (49 C.F.R. 574). The questions raised in your letter are repeated below with our answers immediately following each question.; 1. Section 574.9 of the above states that anyone who leases a vehicl equipped with new tires for more than 60 days is classified as a tire dealer, and shall meet the requirements specified in Section 574.8. Under the above, what would be the 'tire dealer's' responsibility if the customer exchanged these tires, without the knowledge of the leasor (sic), and what should the leasor (sic) do re: compliance if the vehicle is returned and he notices that a substitution had been made?; >>>Under these circumstances the leasor (sic) would only be responsibl for the new tires that were on the vehicle when leased to his customer. It would be the responsibility of the tire dealer selling the replacement tires to the leasee (sic) of your vehicle to record the pertinent tire information and forward it to the manufacturer of the tires.<<<; 2. A company buys a truck as a 'demonstrator' for its own use, bu prior to the actual 'use' of the vehicle, it is sold under a new title. If the seller of the demonstrator advises the local truck dealer of this sale (to include the customer data), has he satisfied all of his responsibilities under Part 574?; >>>Under these circumstances the person who buys a truck and does no use it, but instead sells it, is considered a vehicle dealer selling a new truck. It would be your responsibility to assure that the dealer who originally sold you the truck notifies the vehicle manufacturer that the vehicle changed hands.<<<; 3. A leasor (sic) takes a vehicle back after a 12-month lease. Afte reconditioning it, he leases it to a different customer. The tires were still in good condition and were not removed. Under these circumstances, does the leasor (sic) have any responsibility to notify the vehicle manufacturer that the vehicle is now in different hands?; >>>Under these conditions the leasor (sic) would be in the sam position as a vehicle dealer selling a used vehicle with used tires and the reporting requirements would not apply.<<<; 4. It is our interpretation that under the provision of Part 574, th only time that a final stage manufacturer would be required to maintain tire records would be if he becomes the vehicle manufacturer and places new tires onto a vehicle for the first time. (This would be in the case of adding a tandem axle requiring additional tires, or the actual manufacture of a trailer to which he installed the tires.) Is this correct?; >>>Your understanding is not correct. The final stage manufacturer i required to maintain or have maintained for him a record of tires on or in each vehicle he ships to a motor vehicle distributor or dealer, and maintain or have maintained for him a record of the name and address of the first purchaser for purposes other than resale of each vehicle equipped with such tires.; For your information, attached is a letter sent to major chassi manufacturers dealing with this subject for cases where the final stage manufacturer does not deal with the purchaser of the completed vehicle. The replies received from the chassis manufacturers have been, for the most part, cooperative.<<<; a. In the case of a manufactured vehicle, we interpret section 574.9 t mean that the records kept for three years need not conform with any special format, so long as the customer name and address is evident, and the customer can be contacted by the manufacturer in the event that the tire manufacturer initiated a recall campaign which included the group of tires placed on that vehicle. Is this a correct assumption?; >>>Your understanding is correct, however the requirements for vehicl manufacturers are found in 574.10, not 574.9.<<<; Sincerely, David Schmeltzer, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: nht88-3.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/11/88

FROM: JOSEPH F. MIKOLL -- VICE PRESIDENT TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT CORP

TO: ERICA JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/10/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO JOSEPH F. MIKOLL, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 217, 222 AND 302; LETTER DATED 11/15/88 FROM JOSEPH F. MIKOLL TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA; OCC 2812; LETTER DATED 11/03/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JO NES -- NHTSA TO JOSEPH F. MIKOLL

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

We are writing to you to confirm our understanding that our "Impact Control System", or safety bar is not in conflict with any existing standard for installation in school buses. The device was presented to various staff peopled in NHTSA on July 28, 1988. Our principal contact was Dr. Carl Clark.

Transportation Equipment Corp. was formed in December 1987. The company has conducted extensive market research to determine the concerns of the numerous interest groups who would be affected by installation of our system. The engineering and design process undertaken has resulted in solving two major problems involving the safe transportation of school bus passengers; 1) a drastic reduction of HIC (Head Injury Criteria) numbers by spreading the load across the chest, and 2) overcoming the utility problems associated with seat belt use on school buses.

Included for your review and evaluation are the following materials:

Engineers drawings and photographs of the device.

Video tape and written documentation of the dynamic testing conducted at the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute.

Independent Consultants opinion on the design and dynamic test results.

Background information on our Consulting Engineers.

We have identified those vehicles under 10,000 pounds (small buses & mini vans) as a target market for installation of our system. At present, these vehicles are under a federal mandate to be equipped with seat belts. It is our objective to have our device offered as an alternative option to seat belts in this class of vehicle. We respectfully request your opinion concerning a ruling and/or confirmation of the systems acceptance as an alternative option.

If we have omitted any information needed to consider this matter, please do not hesitate to contact us.

We look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

ID: nht93-9.7

DATE: December 8, 1993

FROM: Steve J. Brooks -- Program Manager, IAD West Coast, Inc.

TO: Office of Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/7/94 from John Womack to Steve J. Brooks (A42; Part 567; Part 571.3)

TEXT:

We are developing a vehicle, of which only six will be built.

These vehicles will be fit for highway use and will be used to travel to trade shows and promotional events at which point the crew of two will distribute items and literature relating to the company.

The vehicle will carry less than ten passengers and the GVWR will be 11,500 lbs.

Would the office of chief council please indicate, what drivers license would be necessary to operate this vehicle, and confirm the classification of the vehicle.

Look forward to your reply.

(Drawing omitted.)