ID: nht91-4.23

DATE: June 18, 1991

FROM: Mickey Hale -- General Sales Manager, Jackie Cooper Olds-GMC

TO: Steve Kratzke

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-14-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Mickey Hale (A38; Std. 208; VSA 108(a)(2))

TEXT:

I am writing in regard to our conversation on June 18, 1991, concerning the installation of seat belts on a used motor vehicle. This is a used 1990 Chevrolet full size van that is having a conversion package built.

The front two seats will have shoulder belts installed. The middle and rear seats will have lap belts installed. It is Jackie Cooper Enterprise's understanding that this meets the NHTSA safety standards.

I would like to have a written document as per our conversation that confirms this does meet those safety standards.

ID: 77-2.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/08/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Wisconsin School Bus Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 5, 1977, letter asking for an interpretation concerning the definition of school bus. In particular you ask how the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration determines the seating capacity of a motor vehicle which in turn determines whether that vehicle will be considered a school bus for purposes of our regulations.

You are correct in your interpretation that a van designed to carry fewer than 10 passengers may transport children to or from school and need not comply with the new school bus safety standards. The NHTSA determines the seating capacity of a motor vehicle by the number of designated seating positions in the vehicle. The term "designated seating position" is defined in Part 571.3 of our regulations (49 Code of Federal Regulations) to mean: ". . . any plan view location intended by the manufacturer to provide seating accommodation while the vehicle is in motion for a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, except auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats." Thus, as long as a van purchased for pupil transportation has fewer than 10 designated seating positions for passengers, it is not considered a school bus and need not comply with school bus safety standards.

SINCERELY,

March 5, 1977

Frank A. Berndt Acting Chief Counsel Federal D.O.T. Nat'l Hwy. Traffic Safety Adm.

We are somewhat unclear as to the meaning and intent of the federal definitions of "school buses" and "vehicles" sold for use as school buses - or being used in pupil transportation - as they apply to vehicle size or passenger capacity.

The State of Wisconsin is presently revising its Administrative Rules governing pupil transportation. It is intended that these proposed revisions will correspond with all federal definitions and regulations. The area that needs clarification is the use of "van-type" vehicles.

We have been given to understand that "vehicles" manufactured for use in pupil transportation require the manufacturer to comply with federal construction standards effective April 1, 1977. Manufacturers of "van-type" vehicles, such as the Chrysler Corp, General Motor and Ford Motor Company, have advised us that the federal regulations apply to these vehicles also, and for that reason, it is their intention not to manufacture a "school van" for sale for use in pupil transportation.

If this information is correct, we would believe that, except for a van "converted" to comply with federal regulations, no van-type vehicle manufactured after April 1, 1977 will be available for use in pupil transportation.

However, it is held that anyone may purchase and use a "van-type" vehicle for use in pupil transportation even though it is manufactured after April 1, 1977 . . . . if the vehicle transports less than 10 persons. Is this a correct interpretation? If so, how does one "measure" a vehicle's passenger carrying capacity?

We believe this area of the federal regulations to be most unclear. If a vehicle transporting "under 10 persons" was exempt from the regulations, then "van-type" vehicles of all sizes could be purchased for use in pupil transportation . . . . as long as its seating capacity was restricted.

We would hope you would enlighten us on this matter, for we are, to say the least, confused.

WISCONSIN SCHOOL BUS ASSOCIATION

Dick Rechlicz Executive Secretary

ID: 2509y

Timothy A. Kelly, President
Salem Vent International, Inc.
P.O. Box 885
Salem, VA 24153

Dear Mr. Kelly:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217; Bus Window Retention and Release as it applies to roof exits. You asked four specific questions which I have addressed below.

First, you asked for confirmation that the only specification in Standard No. 217 concerning the size of roof exits is the requirement that the exit be able to accommodate an ellipsoid with a major axis of 20 inches and a minor axis of 13 inches pushed horizontally through the exit opening. Your understanding is not entirely correct. The ellipsoid requirement to which you refer, set forth in S5.4.1 of Standard No. 217, is the only provision in the standard that specifies a minimum size requirement for roof exit openings. Although there is no maximum size limit, you should be aware that S5.2 of Standard No. 217 provides that, in determining the total unobstructed openings for emergency exit provided by a bus, no emergency exit, regardless of its area shall be credited with more than 536 square inches of the total area requirement. Thus, if a roof exit is larger than 536 square inches, only 536 square inches will be counted for the exit in determining whether the bus complies with the unobstructed openings requirement of S5.2 of Standard No. 217.

Second, you asked for confirmation that Standard No. 217 does not permit the use of escape hatches or ventilators in the roof of school buses as a substitute for any of the emergency exits required on school buses by S5.2.3 of Standard No. 217. This understanding is correct. Additionally, you should be aware that the agency has a longstanding position that any emergency exits, including any roof exits, installed on a school bus in addition to the emergency exits required by S5.2.3 must conform to the requirements of Standard No. 217 for emergency exits installed on buses other than school buses. See the enclosed July 6, 1979 interpretation to Robert Kurre on this issue. Third, you asked for confirmation that Standard No. 217 permits the use of roof exits as a substitute for the rear exit door on buses other than school buses. This statement is not entirely correct. S5.2.1 of Standard No. 217 requires the use of a rear exit door on all non-school buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 lbs., except where the configuration of the bus precludes the installation of an accessible rear exit. In that case, S5.2.1 requires the installation of a roof exit in the rear half of the bus in lieu of the rear exit. This substitution of a roof exit for a rear exit door is allowed only where the bus design precludes the use of a rear exit (such as on rear-engine buses). It is not an option allowing the substitution of a roof exit for the rear door in any design.

Fourth, you asked whether the addition of more than one roof exit on a non-school bus would allow a manufacturer to delete any other required exits in addition to the rear door. It is possible that increasing the total exit space on the bus by adding roof exits could enable a manufacturer to reduce the number or size of other emergency exits on the bus and still comply with the unobstructed openings requirement of S5.2. You should be aware that exit space provided by roof exits is not counted in determining compliance with the requirement in S5.2 that 40 percent of the total unobstructed openings be located on each side of the bus. Whether this substitution of additional roof exits could be made on any particular non-school bus would depend upon whether the bus complied with the exit space and location requirements of S5.2.1 (if the bus has a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds) and the applicable requirements of S5.2.2 (if the bus has a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less).

I hope you have found this information helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact David Greenburg of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

/ref:217 d:5/30/90

ID: 10478

Mr. James D. Murphy, Jr.
8011 S. Cook Way
Littleton, CO 80122

Dear Mr. Murphy:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether a vehicle with two main wheels and two auxiliary wheels may be considered a "motorcycle." As explained below, the answer is yes.

Your letter describes your vehicle's design as having two main wheels, and left and right side auxiliary wheels that are elevated off the ground. You informed Dorothy Nakama of my staff that the auxiliary wheels are to facilitate vehicle turning, when no more than three wheels would touch the ground.

NHTSA defines "motorcycle" at 49 CFR Section 571.5(b) as:

a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground.

In a previous letter, NHTSA stated that a two wheeled vehicle whose auxiliary wheels are used only for stabilization in turns is considered a "motorcycle" since the vehicle is designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground. (See enclosed letter of June 11, 1986 to the NY State Department of Motor Vehicles.) Since your vehicle is also designed to travel with at most three wheels in contact with the ground, we would consider your vehicle a "motorcycle" for purposes of compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:571 d:1/3/95

ID: 15851.drn

Mr. Dale Thornsberry
Director of Operations
Twin Falls Public Schools
201 Main Avenue, West
Twin Falls, ID 83301

Dear Mr. Thornsberry:

This responds to your request for our views on using fifteen-passenger vans to transport school children for activities sponsored by your school district. As explained below, we strongly urge that you use school buses when transporting school children for school activities.

Some background information may be helpful. More than an "advisory group," the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by Congress to issue and enforce the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. In 1974, Congress enacted legislation directing NHTSA to issue motor vehicle safety standards on specific aspects of school bus safety and to apply those standards to all school buses. Such standards became effective on April 1, 1977, and apply to every school bus manufactured on or after that date. The standards are at 49 CFR Part 571.

Under Federal law, a vehicle, including a van designed for carrying 11 or more persons is a bus. A bus is a school bus if used or intended for use in transporting students to and from school or school-related activities.

NHTSA's statute requires each person selling a new school bus to ensure that the vehicle meets all applicable safety standards. Thus, a person may sell a new bus, including a van designed to carry 11 or more persons (including the driver), to a school or school district only if the vehicle is certified as complying with our school bus safety standards. The onus is on the seller to ascertain the intended use of the bus. The seller risks substantial penalties if he or she knowingly sells a vehicle for use as a school bus and the vehicle is not certified as such.

Please note that Federal law and NHTSA's safety standards directly regulate only the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, not their use. Under Federal law, school districts are not prohibited from using vans to transport school children, whether or not such vans meet school bus safety standards. Each State is free to impose its own standards regarding use of motor vehicles, including school buses.

Under the authority of the Highway Safety Act of 1966, NHTSA has issued guidelines for States to use in developing their highway safety programs. NHTSA has issued Highway Safety Program Guideline 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, to provide recommendations on various operational aspects of State school bus and pupil transportation safety programs. Guideline 17 (copy enclosed) recommends that any vehicle designed to carry more than 10 persons which is used as a school bus meet all safety standards applicable to school buses at the time the vehicle was manufactured. Each State determines the extent to which it adopts the recommendations in Guideline 17.

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

Rodney McKnight, Coordinator
Pupil Transportation
Idaho Department of Education
P.O. Box 83720
Boise, Idaho 83720-0027

Mr. McKnight's telephone number is: (208) 334-2203.

Finally, it is NHTSA's position that vehicles meeting Federal school bus safety standards have proven to be the safest way to transport school children. Use of noncomplying vehicles to transport students could result in increased liability in the event of a crash. Since liability would likely be determined by State law, you may wish to consult with your attorneys and insurance carriers for advice on this issue.

I hope this information is helpful. I have enclosed a question-and-answer sheet on "Frequently Asked Questions About Federal School Bus Safety Requirements." If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosures

ref:VSA#571.3

d.9/22/97

ID: nht75-6.23

DATE: 01/01/75 EST

FROM: RICHARD B. DYSON -- NHTSA ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: ALLAN B. FREDHOLD -- GENERAL MANAGER K-B AXLE CO., INC.

TITLE: N40-30 (TWH)

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 4/16/75 FROM RICHARD B. DYSON -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL TO GEOFFREY R. MYERS OF HALL AND MYERS; UNDATED LETTER FROM RICHARD B. DYSON -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL TO ADDRESSEE UNKNOWN

TEXT: Dear Mr. Fredhold:

This responds to K-B Axle Company's March 4, 1975, request for guidance in assisting K-B's customers in meeting their certification responsibilities under Standard No. 121, Air brake systems.

Standard No. 121 specifies air brake performance requirements (and some equipment requirements) which newly-manufactured trucks, buses, and trailers must be capable of meeting. For example, the standard specifies that if a truck or bus, in the loaded and unloaded condition, is stopped six times from 60 mph on certain test surfaces, it must be capable of stopping at least once in 258 feet without leaving a 12-foot wide lane and without uncontrolled wheel lockup.

Many manufacturers incorrectly assume that this requirement means that, in order to certify that it has this capability, each vehicle produced must actually be tested from 60 mph on a test track. In fact the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1391, et. seq.) specifies the manufacturer's certification responsibility, which is to exercise "due care" that the vehicle or item of equipment is capable of meeting all requirements.

NHTSA has made clear in the past, and has emphasized in its implementation of Standard No. 121, that a manufacturer is free to use whatever method is reasonably calculated to fulfill his responsibility to exercise due care. To cite a simple example, if a safety standard specifies that a certain safety device be no less than 8 inches above the ground, it would not be necessary to measure the height of each safety device on each vehicle produced to assure in the exercise of due care that it complies.

Standard No. 121, of course, establishes more complex performance requirements, and they would be affected by the addition of your "tag" or "pusher" axles. Most final-stage manufacturers and alterers feel confident that they can meet such requirements as minimum air tank volume when they add a third axle. In more complex areas, however, they require some reasonable basis on which to certify, in the exercise of due care, that the vehicle still is capable of stopping within the required distance, and that the brake actuation and release times still meet the minimum performance levels of the standard.

As noted earlier, the standard and our statute do not require road testing as the basis of certification. NHTSA, in a preamble to Standard No. 121 recognized:

What constitutes due care in a particular case depends on all relevant facts, including such things as the time to elapse before a new effective date, the availability of test equipment, the limitations of current technology, and above all the diligence evidenced by the manufacturer.

Road testing would be one method of exercising due care. Your customers, of course, may not have the capability to conduct road testing.

As a supplier of the added component, you are in a good position to develop engineering data on the effect your axle has when added to a 121 vehicle. For example, you could add your axle to a 121 chassis with a representative body and conduct a road test to see that the vehicle with the added axle and gross vehicle weight would still meet the stopping distance requirements. You might also test the actuation and release times on this vehicle to see that the axle addition does not cause non-conformity. This experimentation would permit you to make general statements about the conditions under which your axle could be added to a 121-type chassis without causing non-conformity.

Although retardation force is not a requirement for a vehicle other than a trailer, you suggest use of dynamometer data as a basis of certification. Such information would be a valid basis of certification if it is shown that a reasonable correlation exists between the retardation forces you specify and the actual ability of the modified truck to stop.

Yours truly,

ID: 2653o

Mr. J.V. McFadden
President
MTD Products Inc.
P.O. Box 36900
Cleveland, Ohio 44136

Dear Mr. McFadden:

This responds to your letter concerning the applicability of Federal or State requirements to a hydraulic logsplitter mounted on a frame carriage equipped with highway high speed wheels and a trailer towing hitch. While we can not answer your question concerning applicable State requirements, we provide the following information on the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

By way of background information, our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse commercial products. Instead, the Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is required to certify that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The Vehicle Safety Act prohibits the manufacture or sale of a noncomplying product unless, despite the exercise of due care, the manufacturer doesn't have reason to know that the noncompliance exists.

Any vehicle that falls within the statutory definition of the term "motor vehicle" must comply with all applicable safety standards. Section 102(3) of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) defines a "motor vehicle" as

any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

We have interpreted this language as follows. The definition does not include equipment which uses the highways only to move between job sites and which typically spends extended periods of time at a single job site. In this case, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental, and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured.

On the other hand, when a vehicle frequently uses the highway going to and from job sites, and stays at the job site for only a limited time, it is the agency's position that the vehicle in question is a "motor vehicle" in the statutory sense, since the on-highway use is more than "incidental".

Notwithstanding the foregoing, a vehicle is not classified as a motor vehicle if it is of such an unusual configuration that it is easily distinguished from normal traffic and it has a top speed of not more than 20 miles per hour.

A determination of whether or not a vehicle falls within the definition of motor vehicle is based upon a consideration of all of the above factors. Given the information that you have provided us, it appears that the hydraulic log-splitter is a motor vehicle. From the picture in the brochure, it is clear that the vehicle has an unusual configuration. This alone, however, is not adequate to prevent a determination that the vehicle is a motor vehicle within the meaning of the statute. More important is the fact that the vehicle may make frequent use of the highway, staying at one particular job site a limited amount of time. The provision of highway speed tires indicates the manufacturer's intention to produce a vehicle which is suitable for driving at highway speeds.

Because the tow-behind logsplitter is equipped with a trailer tow hitch, we would consider the vehicle a trailer, defined in the agency's regulations as:

a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle. (See 49 CFR 571.3.)

The safety standards which apply to all trailers are Standard No. l08, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment; Standard No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars; and Standard No. ll5, Vehicle Identification Number--Basic Requirements. The content requirements for the vehicle identification number are found at Part 565. In addition, if the trailer is equipped with brakes, it must meet Standard No. l06, Brake hoses, Standard No. ll6, Motor vehicle brake fluids, and applicable requirements of Standard No. l2l, Air brake systems. All of these standards are found in 49 CFR Part 57l.

We regret the delay in responding to your request. If you have further questions on this matter, please contact us.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel ref:VSA#571 d:2/11/88

ID: nht71-3.28

DATE: 07/10/71

FROM: CLUE D. FERGUSON -- NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY JOSEPH F. ZEMAITIS

TO: Superex of Ramsey Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 10, 1971, in which you state that you are interested in determining whether a particular child seat meets Federal requirements, and whether you may submit a sample fo us for approval.

The NHTSA does not furnish approvals, or statements that a particular product complies with an applicable Federal standard. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1381 at seg.) it is the responsibility of each manufacturer both to determine that his products comply with any applicable safety standard, and to certify that the product complies in accordance with section 114 of the Act (15 U.S.C 1403) and the Certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567, copy enclosed).

Manufacturers generally either test their products to the applicable standards in their own facilities, or contract with an independent test laboratory to perform the appropriate tests. It is up to the manufacturer to determine what means are best suited for his particular product. You should note, however, that the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires a manufacturer to use due care both in manufacturing his products to comply with applicable standards, and ensuring that his certification that they comply is not false or misleading (Section 108). Violators of those requirements may be subject to civil penalties and other sanctions provided for in the Act (Sections 109 and 110).

A copy of the Act, with the sections specified above marked for your convenience, is enclosed. If you have any questions concerning its application to you, please write to us and we will be happy to answer them for you.

Enclosure

ID: nht79-3.1

DATE: 01/24/79

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

TO: Volkswagen of America

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 3, 1979, asking for confirmation of your interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it applies to a braking system that Volkswagen proposes to use on its 1980 Dasher model.

Specifically, the Dasher will employ a single "pressure switch on each vehicle, meaning that the stop lamp will be activated by only one of the [two, split] service brake systems." You asked whether this is consistent with S4.5.4 of Standard No. 108 which requires that "the stop lamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes." You argued that it meets the standard because:

"Neither FMVSS 571.105-75 nor 575.108 (sic) clearly specify the conditions under which the stop lights have to operate. Specifically the regulations do not specify that the stop lamps must illuminate upon application of the service brake control if one of the circuits of a dual circuit hydraulic braking system failed."

We do not concur with your interpretation. S4.5.4 quite clearly specifies the conditions under which the stop lamps must operate--"upon application of the service brakes," and it is immaterial which circuit of a dual circuit hydraulic braking system is braking the vehicle. Therefore, your proposed system would constitute an apparent noncompliance with Standard No. 108.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA

JANUARY 3, 1979

Joseph J. Levin -- Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Adm.

Subject: Stop Lamp Switch Requirements - FMVSS 108

Dear Mr. Levin:

The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 specifies that a vehicle stop lamp shall be activated upon application of the service brakes. Volkswagen is currently considering a manufacturing decision regarding brake light switches, and because this would fall under the spectrum of the standard, we are requesting NHTSA's opinion of our contemplated course of action as it relates to the standard.

Volkswagen's current product line uses two pressure sensing switches in the master cylinder to activate both the stop lamps and the brake failure warning light. For the 1980 model year, Volkswagen is replacing these switches in the master cylinder with a float-type fluid level indicator switch to activate the brake failure warning light, and a pedal-activated switch to activate the stop lights. Together these changes will result in a cost saving. However, because of certain manufacturing considerations we are unable to employ the brake pedal switch on Dasher models. For these models we will need an alternate method to activate the stop lamps, specifically an in-line pressure sensing switch.

The proposed system uses only one pressure switch on each vehicle, meaning that the stop lamps will be activated by only one of the service brake subsystems. Our question is then whether the NHTSA believes that this strategy (the single switch) is consistent with the standard.

It is Volkswagen's position that our proposal meets the requirements of all applicable standards. Neither FMVSS 571.105-75 nor 575.108 clearly specify the conditions under which the stop lights have to operate. Specifically, the regulations do not specify that the stop lamps must illuminate upon application of the service brake control if one of the circuits of a dual circuit hydraulic braking system failed.

Volkswagen recognizes that the NHTSA may be concerned about the situation in which, with one hydraulic circuit inoperative, service brake operation is possible (at a reduced level) without stop lamp activation. However, this is a situation which has a small likelihood for occurrence, and a smaller likelihood for sustained existence.

The alternative to our proposal is the installation of a second pressure sensing switch on each vehicle such that one switch is employed in each service brake subsystem. This system would insure that, unless the switches themselves failed, stop lamp activation would continue as long as hydraulic pressure is maintained in any one of the two subsystems. However, the in-plant cost of the second switch is substantial, DM 1.80 per vehicle.

Your prompt consideration of the request for interpretation would be greatly appreciated. If you need any further information, or if you would like to discuss this topic, please contact Mr. Preuss of my staff. He can be reached at (313) 574-3784.

Sincerely

D. K. Haenchen Administrator Vehicle Regulations

ID: 08-004150 hooper--18 Nov 08--sa