ID: nht92-5.41

DATE: June 29, 1992

FROM: Frederick H. Grubbe -- Acting Administrator, NHTSA

TO: John Tanner -- U.S. House of Representatives

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter from John Tanner to John A. Cline (OCC 7373)

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter to Mr. John A. Cline, Director, U.S. Department of Transportation Congressional Liaison, inquiring into the possibility of amending "the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's regulations against the use of 11-plus passenger vans to transport students."

You received the same letter from six constituents, all junior high or high school officials, in which they stated that in past years they used 12 to 15-passenger vans to transport students to and from school-related events. They can no longer do so because of memos from Mr. Ernest Farmer, Director of Pupil Transportation, Tennessee State Department of Education, wherein he called attention to a 1970s law regarding use of vehicles with a capacity of 11 or more. The letter emphasizes the adverse effects of not being able to use 12 to 15-passenger vans and asks your help in having that law amended to allow use of such vehicles. In closing, the letter states that the writer does not understand the rationale in allowing a van to transport 10 passengers but not 11 or more.

I appreciate this opportunity to clarify for you the Federal law and our implementing regulations on the safety requirements for school buses. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. SS1381 to 1431 (hereinafter Safety Act), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards. In 1974, Congress enacted the Schoolbus Safety Amendments to the Safety Act, directing the issuance of motor vehicle safety standards on specific aspects of school bus safety, such standards to be applicable to all school buses. NHTSA issued those standards, effective April 1, 1977, which may be found in 49 CFR Part 571.

Under Federal law, a vehicle, including a van, designed for carrying 11 or more people is classified as a bus, and a bus is further classified as a school bus if it is used or intended for use in transporting students to and from school or school related activities. The Safety Act requires each person selling a new school bus to ensure that the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards. Thus, a person may sell a new bus, including a van designed to carry 11 or more persons, to a school or school district only if the vehicle is certified as complying with applicable Federal safety standards. The onus is on the seller to ascertain the intended use of the bus, and the seller risks substantial penalties if he or she knowingly sells a vehicle for use as a school bus if the vehicle is not certified as a school bus.

Please note that Federal law and NHTSA implementing regulations directly regulate only the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, not their subsequent use. Therefore, school districts are not prohibited by Federal law from using vans of any size to transport school children, whether or not such

vans meet Federal school bus safety standards. Individual states, however, are free to impose their own standards on the USE of motor vehicles, including school buses. Accordingly, the State of Tennessee may regulate the use of school buses to any extent that it deems appropriate, so long as the Federal standards are not thereby affected.

Although not specifically required by Federal law, it is this agency's strongly held position that vehicles meeting Federal school bus safety standards are the safest way to transport school children. We should also caution that use of noncomplying vehicles of any kind to transport students could result in increased liability in the event of an accident. School districts should consult their attorneys and insurance carriers for advice on that issue.

I hope this letter will be helpful in clarifying this matter for you and your constituents. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance to you.

ID: 12172har.nes

Howard R. Price, Esq.
Brodey & Price
9777 Wilshire Blvd.
Beverly Hills, CA 90212

Dear Mr. Price:

This responds to your letter asking several questions about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems," as it applies to a child restraint harness. I apologize for the delay in responding.

You wish to know whether the design of a particular harness is in compliance with Standard 213. Please note that NHTSA does not issue interpretations about the conformance of a specific vehicle or item of equipment with the standards. Those determinations are usually made in the context of an administrative proceeding when a full examination of the issues is possible, such as an enforcement action.

The "All Our Kids Travel Vest, Model TV600," was tested in 1994 by Calspan Advanced Technology Center (Calspan) for NHTSA as part of the agency's compliance test program of child restraint systems. Calspan found that the restraint appeared to comply with all the requirements of Standard 213 except for certain requirements on labeling and installation instructions. A copy of the test report (213-CAL-94-048) is enclosed for your information.

Your first question concerns S5.2.2.1(a) of Standard 213, which requires that "The system surface provided for the support of the child's back shall be flat or concave and have a continuous surface area of not less than 85 square inches."

You ask whether the restraint meets the requirement of S5.2.2.1(a) of Standard 213. You describe certain "reinforcing ribs" on a metal plate of a harness provided for support of the child occupant's back. You state that the ribs are 0.62 inches in width, raised approximately 0.25 inches above the surface of the metal plate. In addition, there are "corrugations (grooved in the front, ribbed in the rear)" that are 0.5 inches in width and 0.25 inches below the surface of the metal plate. As you describe the metal plate, it is essentially flat in orientation and thus would meet the requirement.

Your second question asks about S5.2.4 of Standard 213, which states, in pertinent part:

Any portion of a rigid structural component within or underlying a contactable surface...shall, with any padding or other flexible overlay material removed, have a height above any immediately adjacent restraint system surface of not more than 3/8 inch and no exposed edge with a radius of less than 1/4 inch. (Emphasis added.)

You ask whether the determination that an edge is exposed is made before or after the removal of any padding or flexible overlay material. The answer is that NHTSA first removes padding or flexible overlay material, then measures the height of protrusions and the radius of exposed edges. (See underlined language above.) You also ask whether S5.2.4 specifies a minimum thickness of 1/2 inch for the metal plate. The intent of S5.2.4 is to ensure that edges that might be contacted through any overlay or padding must be rounded. However, the edges of this particular plate, as opposed to the essentially flat surface, would not be contacted by the dummy.

Your third question pertains to S5.4.3.5 of Standard 213, which sets performance requirements for "Any buckle in a child restraint system belt assembly design to restrain a child using the system...." You ask if S5.4.3.5 or any other paragraph in the standard would prohibit a "'hook and loop' or 'Velcro' closure, designed to fasten around a ring attached to the opposite side of the waist belt...solely because it is not actually a 'buckle'?"

The answer is Standard 213 does not prohibit the "hook and loop" assembly you describe. S5.4.3.5 sets requirements for push button buckles when provided but does not require the buckles types to be standardized. However, in a preamble to a December 13, 1979 final rule adopting upgraded requirements in Standard 213, the agency encouraged child restraint manufacturers to use push button buckles, "so that people unfamiliar with child restraints can readily unbuckle them in emergencies." 44 FR 72131, 72136. Our position on this has not changed.

If you have further questions, please contact us at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:213
d:6/11/97

ID: 11842.ZTV

Mr. John D. Higinbothom
John S. Connor, Inc.
The World Trade Center
401 E. Pratt Street
Suite 700
Baltimore, MD 21202
Ref. 554761
Dear Mr. Higinbothom:

This is in reply to your letter of April 18, 1996, with respect to scrappage of a 1993 Toyota Starlet that does not conform to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You stated that the vehicle is currently in a bonded warehouse, and the importer has decided to destroy the car rather than spend the money necessary to bring it into conformity with Federal standards. You have asked "whether any of the parts on the car can be used on other vehicles".

The brake hoses, lamps and reflectors, tires, glazing, and seat belt assemblies may be permanently imported if they are marked with a DOT symbol. This constitutes the equipment manufacturer's certification of compliance that the equipment complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and it is permissible to import DOT-marked equipment even if the vehicle from which it is taken has not been certified by the vehicle manufacturer as meeting Federal standards. However, the remainder of the vehicle (or the entire vehicle, if none of the parts listed above) must be exported.

If you have any questions, please call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:591#VSA d:5/23/96

ID: nht92-2.11

DATE: 11/23/92

FROM: HARRY CAMERON -- PRESIDENT, SAFETY, LTD.

TO: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNCIL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 2-22-93 FROM JOHN WOMACK TO HARRY CAMERON (A40; STD. 209; VSA 108)

TEXT:

November 23, 1992 I am writing you at the suggestion of Mr. Jim Gilkey of the Vehicle Safety Office.

This letter is to inquire into the procedure to obtain certification for the repair and recertification of motor vehicle passenger restraints to comply with DOT 206-3206.

We have a request for a branch of the Defense Department to provide this service as they have a problem replacing belts which have worn and frayed webbing when new belts are not available or over priced.

This is a normal function for us as we are certified by the Federal Aviation Administration to repair, inspect and recertify aircraft belts. This is accomplished as FAA Repair Station FY5R9874M, with repairs complying with our operation specifications manual, "Repairs to aircraft seat belts per manufacturers recommendations, TSO and AC 43.13-1A Chapter 8, Section 3, Paragraph 361".

I understand this requirement has not surfaced in the past, but I believe there will be a need in the future resulting from the increased use of restraints in high milage vehicles and responsible procedures should be extablished.

Thank you.

ID: nht73-5.8

DATE: 10/09/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: David Busby

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 29, 1973, concerning the importation of vehicles with their seat belt warning systems and interlocks deactivated. Your question is whether these systems, and the antitheft warning buzzer as well, could be considered "readily attachable equipment items" under the import regulations, 19 CFR 5 12.80(b)(iv), and therefore allowed to be imported in a deactivated condition.

We have concluded that the systems in question are "readily detachable" in a manner analogous to that of components such as the outside rearview mirror, even though they are not physically removed from their usual location in the vehicle. Their deactivation is therefore permitted by 19 CFR @ 12.80(b)(iv).

We would emphasize, however, that manufacturers importing vehicles in this fashion must take precautions to insure themselves that their dealers bring the vehicles into conformity with the standards. Otherwise, the manufacturers risk exposure to civil penalties pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1) and 1398(a), since they are relying on the dealers to act as their agents in fulfilling their statutory responsibilities.

ID: MBWletter10702

Mr. Frank Multerer
President, MBW Inc.
250 Hartford Road
P.O. Box 440
Slinger, WI53086-0440

Dear Mr. Multerer:

This responds to your letter of September 18, 2002, concerning requirements for mortar mixers manufactured by MBW Inc., which are used by the masonry trade to process the binding material for the installation of brick, block, and stone at various construction sites. These mortar mixers may be wheel-mounted and towed to a jobsite, or alternatively they may be transported on a truck or trailer. You asked for our interpretation as to whether mortar mixers are subject to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requirements. For the reasons that follow, the answer is no.

By way of background, Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code (U.S.C.) (Safety Act) authorizes the NHTSA to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment.The Safety Act defines a "motor vehicle" as:

a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.

49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6).

If a vehicle is a motor vehicle under the above definition, then it must comply with all applicable FMVSS. However, if a vehicle is not a motor vehicle under this definition, then it need not comply with the agencys safety standards because such vehicle falls outside the agencys scope of authority.

Whether the agency will consider construction equipment, such as a mortar mixer, to be a motor vehicle depends upon its use. It is the agencys position that this statutory definition does not encompass mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, which use the highway only to move between jobsites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single jobsite. In such cases, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured.

However, in those cases where certain types of construction equipment make more frequent use of the roadways, the agency has determined such equipment to be a motor vehicle under the Safety Act. For example, dump trucks have been determined to be motor vehicles because they regularly use the highways to travel between jobsites and stay on such jobsites for only a limited period of time, thereby rendering their on-highway use more than "incidental."

Your letter states that mortar mixers can be wheel-mounted so that they may be towed from jobsite to jobsite. Your letter goes on to state that the duration of mortar mixers use on jobsites is variable, ranging from roughly a week at small, residential jobs to many months at large, commercial projects.

Based upon the information and literature you have provided, we do not believe that your mortar mixers are "motor vehicles" as that term is defined by section 102(3) of the Act. This conclusion is based upon the assumption that your equipment generally spends extended periods of time at a single construction site and only uses the public roads infrequently to travel between jobsites. Accordingly, your mortar mixers would not be subject to the FMVSS.

However, that if the agency were to receive additional information indicating that the mortar mixers use the road more than on an incidental basis, then the agency would reassess this interpretation.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions regarding NHTSAs safety standards, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:VSA
d.10/24/02

ID: nht75-4.1

DATE: 11/17/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: MOTAC, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to MOTAC's September 18, 1975, question whether rebuilding a platform trailer constitutes the manufacture of a new vehicle subject to applicable motor vehicle safety standards when the running gear (the axles, wheels, suspension, and related components sometimes known as a bogie) and the platform of a wrecked trailer is used (1) in combination with entirely new frame members, (2) in combination with one main frame member of the wrecked vehicle and one new frame member, and (3) in combination with part of one or both main frame members. You also ask whether the addition of a second axle to a single axle trailer, or the deletion of one axle on a tandem axle trailer, qualifies as the manufacture of a new vehicle subject to applicable safety standards.

In response to your first question, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has determined (in the Stainless Tank and Equipment letter to which you refer) that, as a minimum, the running gear and main frame of the existing trailer must be used to qualify the rebuilding operation as a repair where all other materials are new. This position does not apply to the three situations you describe in which only the main frame members, and perhaps several cross members, are replaced. Therefore a repair of this type is not considered the manufacture of a new trailer.

In response to your second question, the NHTSA would not consider the addition of a second axle to a single axle trailer, or the removal of one axle from a tandem axle vehicle, to constitute the manufacture of a new vehicle.

Sincerely,

September 18, 1975

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attention: Frank A. Berndt Acting Chief Counsel

We would appreciate your clarification as to the extent that major repairs and/or modifications may be made to semi-trailers and pull trailers without the inclusion of the FMVSS 121 anti-lock brakes.

We have two items or catagories that we wished resolved and they are brought about thru your letter of 8/28/75, file number N40-30 addressed to Stainless Tank and Equipment, Inc., Cottage Grove, Wisconsin. This letter was transmitted to all members of T.T.M.A.

ITEM NO. 1

Assume that a platform trailer had been in a serious accident and possibly rolled over, thereby bending and twisting the main frame members severely. We will also assume that the damage is to such an extent that the main frame members cannot be straightened, which generally can be done.

The following conditions could then prevail for the required repair:

A. Cut the damaged portion off of one or possibly both main frame rails and repair with a new partial section or sections.

B. Replace one main frame rail completely.

C. Replace both main frame rails completely.

In the above hypothesis, the "Bogie", axles, wheels, tires, supports, etc. would all be used. The trailer would maintain the same model and serial number.

In a major repair of this sort will the standard 121 brakes be required? If so, then the old axles would have to be junked and new S-121 axle assemblies with computor/relay valves must be purchased and installed.

ITEM NO. 2

Six years ago, our company manufactured thirty (30) single axle container semi-trailers and thirty (30) tandem axle container semi-trailers, 25 foot long to haul 20 foot containers. The main frame rails, bolsters, supports, etc., are identical on both trailers.

The customer is now contemplating converting the single axle semi-trailers to tandem axle semi-trailers. This will entail relocating the existing front and rear spring hangers, adding a center equalizer hanger and rocker arm assembly, one set of springs, one axle, brake, tire and wheel assembly. The trailer will be reregistered as a tandem axle semi-trailer for state licensing.

In converting a single axle semi-trailer to a tandem axle semi-trailer will the Standard 121 brakes be required? Also, conversely, if a tandem axle semi-trailer should be converted to a single axle semi-trailer will the Standard 121 brakes be required?

MOTAC, INC.

Jack A. Johnson Chief Engineer

ID: aiam4132

Dear Mr. Panetta: Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Joh Cormick of San Luis Obispo, California, regarding Federal regulations for wheelchairs on school buses. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply, since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers Federal laws applying to school buses.; Your constituent requested information about two sets of Federa regulations relating to school bus drivers. He first asked about any regulations issued by the Department of Justice for fingerprint checks of school bus drivers. I understand that those questions have been referred to the Justice Department for reply. His second set of concerns, which you asked us to review, pertain to regulations issued by California that permit temporary placement of wheelchairs in the aisle of school buses during operation of the vehicles. Mr. Cormick believes this is unsafe since a wheelchair might impede access from the school bus in the event of an accident and asks what effect Federal law might have on State adoption of such a regulation.; As explained below, Federal law does not prohibit States from issuing regulation for the temporary placing of wheelchairs in school bus aisles. While NHTSA has issued a number of recommendations to the States for operational requirements for school buses, States establish regulations for school bus use, such as the one described by your constituent. Mr. Cormick is thus correct in contacting State officials to express his concerns and suggestions.; Since your constituent asks how Federal school bus regulations affec regulations issued by the States, I would like to begin with some background information on our school bus regulations. This agency administers two sets of regulations for school buses. The first set, issued under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, applies to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and includes NHTSA's motor vehicle safety standards for new school buses. Those school bus safety standards set performance standards for various aspects of school bus safety, such as windows and windshields, fuel systems, emergency exits and seating systems. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, manufacturers of new buses must certify that their buses comply with our school bus safety standards if the vehicles are intended for carrying school children, and sellers of new school buses must ensure that complying school buses are only sold. The requirements of the Vehicle Safety Act and our school bus safety standards are Federal requirements which apply directly to school bus manufacturers and sellers and are thus not dependent on State adoption.; On the other hand, the second set of regulations we have for schoo buses is contingent on State implementation. This set, issued under the Highway Safety Act of 1966, applies to Federal funding of State highway safety programs. Each State submits a highway safety program which is reviewed and approved by NHTSA each year. Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, *Pupil Transportation Safety* (copy enclosed), contains guidelines for various aspects of pupil transportation programs including school vehicle identification, maintenance, and driver qualifications. One of its recommendations is that school bus drivers meet all special physical, mental and moral requirements established by the State agency having responsibility for pupil transportation. Since States set the procedures for selecting school bus drivers, State officials would be able to provide Mr. Cormick with more information about California's policies governing school bus driver selection and examination.; Because we regulate the manufacture and sale of new school buses an not their use, we would have no authority to prohibit school bus users from placing wheelchairs in aisles of school buses. Further, no recommendations for accommodating wheelchairs in school buses have been made in Program Standard No. 17. However, we are concerned about practices that might affect the safety provided by school buses (such as impeding access to school bus exits) and we encourage States to ensure that school children are transported in the safest possible manner. Mr. Cormick's school district might want to consider using school buses that have seating positions specially modified to accommodate students in wheelchairs. Those vehicles have wheelchair positions to which wheelchairs can be firmly secured, which provides safer accommodations to all occupants of the school bus.; Please contact me if you or your constituent have any furthe questions.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: 17569.ztv

Mr. Peter Borne
SuperHero Cars Ltd.
6336 Humboldt Ave. S.
Richfield, MN 55423

Dear Mr. Borne:

This will confirm that we regard as a 1971 motor vehicle the Bat-Mobile you described in your letter of March 12, 1998, as follows:

This is a custom built fiberglass molded body, which has been mounted to a 1971 Chrysler New Yorker Frame. All the running gear and mechanical elements are 1971. The engine . . . has been replaced by the same 1971 Vintage Chrysler 440. This car is registered in Vancouver B.C. as a 1971 New Yorker.

You may import this vehicle pursuant to the declaration that the vehicle is 25 or more years old, which means that it does not have to be brought into conformity with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, this exemption does not apply to those items of equipment which are the subject of certain individual Federal motor vehicle safety standards. These items are brake hoses and brake fluid, lighting equipment, tires, glazing, and seat belt assemblies (if the Bat-Mobile is equipped with them). These items of equipment must conform in order to be imported. Generally, conformance with our requirements is indicated by the DOT symbol which the manufacturer has placed on the item to certify compliance.

We are unable to advise you on the requirements of the Environmental Protection Agency for exceptions to the emissions regulations.

If you have any further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office who spoke with you on April 16 (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:591
d.5/14/98

ID: nht92-6.35

DATE: May 27, 1992

FROM: Mark W. Russo

TO: Charles Gauthier -- Director, Defects Investigation, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/13/92 from Paul J. Rice to Mark W. Russo (A39; Std. 222)

TEXT:

I want to thank you for taking the time and interest to discuss the "R-BAR" subject with me in the past.

The purpose of this letter is to request from NHTSA an official "review and comment" on the topics outlined below. I have enclosed a coy of the "Test Data" booklet I received from Micho a few weeks ago as it contains information not included in the original package sent to me in October '91.

I am mainly interested in addressing the following:

A. The "applicability" of FMVSS 222 to be used as a "test" or "certification" criteria for the "R-BAR restraining system".

B. The use of "alternate testing methods" to comply with FMVSS 571: S 222-2. "S5.1.4 Seat performance rearward". as appears to be the case in the last three pages of section "3" in Micho's booklet.

C. Background of NHTSA's contacts with Micho Ind. regarding the above subjects and copies of correspondence (if permissible).

D. Any other general comments or technical concerns which might be important, for any school districts to consider, regarding the installation of such a device.

Your attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated by all concerned for the safety of our children.