ID: 1983-2.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/04/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Safety Alert Co., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

AUG 4 1983 NOA-30

Mr. Chuck Howard President Safety Alert Co., Inc. 1667 9th Street Santa Monica, California 90404

Dear Mr. Howard:

This is in reply to your letter of June 28, 1983, occasioned by what you believe is our misconception of the way your "Safety Alert" system operates. In my letter of June 17 I stated that "Safety Alert", which was intended to flash a yellow bulb installed in the backup lamp system, would create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108 which requires backup lamps to be white in color and steady burning when in use. You now bring to our attention that your system does not alter the normal operation of the backup lamps which are steady burning when a vehicle is in reverse, even when "Safety Alert" is installed.

We understood this when we advised you that you could use "Safety Alert" through any rear lighting system which Standard No. 108 allows to flash for signalling purposes such as the hazard warning or turn signal systems. The converse of this is that "Safety Alert" cannot be used through any rear lighting system that Standard No. 108 requires to be steady-burning when in use, such as the backup lamp system, even though when used as a backup lamp it is steady burning. I am sorry this was not clear to you.

We are unaware that any foreign manufacturer is failing to comply with Standard No. 108 by installing a backup lamp system that "reflects amber" as you have told us.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

JUNE 28TH, 1983

MR. FRANK BERNDT CHIEF COUNCIL N.H.T.S.A. 400 SEVENTH STREET, S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590

DEAR MR. BERNDT:

I AM IN RECEIPT OF YOUR LETTER DATED JUNE 17TH 1983. I WOULD LIKE TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION THAT OUR SYSTEM DOES NOT OPERATE AS YOU INDICATE IN PARAGRAPH TWO OF THAT LETTER.

OUR SYSTEM, SAFETY ALERT, WAS INVENTED TO SERVE THE PUBLIC AS A CAUTION LIGHT THAT WOULD FLASH FOUR TIMES IN FOUR SECONDS, INDICATING SPEED REDUCTION. ALSO IN PARAGRAPH TWO, YOU MENTION THAT THE BACK-UP LIGHTS BE STEADY BURNING IN USE. WE BELIEVE THAT SAFETY ALERT IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THIS RULING.

SAFETY ALERT DOES NOT ALTER THE NORMAL FUNCTION OF THE BACK-UP LIGHTS. WHEN THE VEHICLE IS IN REVERSE, THE BACK-UP LAMPS ARE STEADY BURNING, NOT FLASHING.

DR. CARL CLARK, INVENTOR CONTACT, HAS ONE OF OUR DEMONSTRATION UNIT WHICH WILL SHOW THAT THE BACK-UP LIGHTS IN REVERSE ARE STEADY BURNING. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OUR SYSTEM AND THE FEDERAL REGULATION IS THAT IN REVERSE OUR-BACK-UP LIGHT LAMPS HAVE A TINT OF AMBER INSTEAD OF PURE WHITE.

WE HAVE SPENT HOURS IN PARKING LOTS, LOOKING AT THE BACK-UP LIGHTS AND THEIR COLOR. THE MAJORITY OF FOREIGN CARS ARE NOW FACTORY EQUIPPED WITH BACK-UP LIGHTS THAT REFLECT AMBER WHEN IN THE REVERSE POSITION, CONSEQUENTLY IT APPEARS REASONABLE THAT THE PUBLIC AT LARGE IS ALREADY ACCUSTOMED TO THIS COLOR IN THE BACK-UP LIGHT AREA.

ALTHOUGH WE ARE PLEASED TO KNOW THAT OUR DEVICE HAS BEEN APPROVED FOR USE ON THE HAZARD LIGHTS AND TURN SIGNALS, WE STILL BELIEVE THAT THE ISSUE OF SAFETY IS BEST SERVED WHEN SAFETY ALERT IS PUT ON THE BACK-UP LIGHTS, THUS AVOIDING ANY MISUNDERSTANDING ABOUT SUDDEN STOPS.

WE SINCERELY ARE TRYING TO HELP THE REAR-END COLLISION PROBLEM AND WE KNOW THAT OUR ORIGINAL PREMISE IS BEST SUITED TO DO THIS WITHOUT CAUSING ANY MORE CONFUSION ON THE HIGHWAYS, I AM HOPING WITH ALL MY HEART YOU WILL AGAIN TAKE A FEW MOMENTS TO LOOK AT OUR DEMO KIT TO SEE THAT WHAT I AM SAYING IS SO.

MR. BERNDT, IF MY ONLY INTEREST WAS TO GET MY PRODUCT ON THE STORE SHELVES, YOUR LETTER OF JUNE 17, 1983 WOULD SUFFICE. I AM, HOWEVER, CONCERNED ABOUT THE DRIVING SAFETY OF OTHERS AND I'M NOT CONVINCED THAT INSTALLING SAFETY ALERT ON TO THE HAZARD LIGHTS AND OR THE TURN SIGNALS MIGHT NOT CREATE MORE PROBLEMS THAN THEY CURE.

NEEDLESS TO SAY, I WILL BE ANXIOUSLY AWAITING YOUR REPLY TO THIS LETTER.

VERY TRULY YOURS,

CHUCK HOWARD, PRESIDENT SAFETY ALERT CO., INC.

CH:MM CC: DR. CARL CLARK

ID: 1983-1.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/29/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Sherrod Vans, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MAR 29 1983 NOA-30

Sherrod Vans, Inc. 9485 Regency Square Blvd. Suite 330 Jacksonville, Florida 32211

Dear Sirs:

This responds to your recent letter asking for confirmation that you do not have to install seat belts on a sofa/bed used in your van conversions if you place a "disclaimer" on the sofa to indicate that it is not to be considered a seat while the vehicle is in motion.

Your assumption is incorrect. You must install seat belts on these sofa seats. Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires the installation of either Type 1 (lap belts) or Type 2 (combination lap and shoulder belts) belts at each designated seating position in a van, including rearmost seats. Under 49 CFR Part 571.3, "designated seating position" is defined as,

"any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design and vehicle design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats. Any bench or split-bench seat in a passenger car, truck or multipurpose passenger vehicle with a GVWR less than 10,000 pounds, having greater than 50 inches of hip room (measured in accordance with SAE Standard J1100(a)) shall have not less than three designated seating positions, unless the seat design or vehicle design is such that the center position cannot be used for seating."

In our opinion, a sofa seat in the rear of a van is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion and, therefore, is a designated seating position. The fact that the seat converts to a bed is irrelevant. This will not prevent passengers from using the position for seating when the accommodation is in its unconverted, sofa mode.

A manufacturer cannot escape the responsibilities associated with a designated seating position simply by placing a sticker on the seat disclaiming that the position is to be used. If this were the case, manufacturers would be able to place stickers on all seats in vehicles and avoid the requirements for seat belts entirely. It is true that Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, requires seats not designated for occupancy while the vehicle is in motion to be conspicuously labeled to that effect (paragraph S4.4). However, this labeling requirement is only applicable to positions that do not qualify as designated seating positions under 49 CFR 571.3. For example, folding jump seats are not considered designated seating positions under the definition. Therefore, these seats should be labeled as required by Standard No. 207.

In our opinion, you would be able to omit seat belts in this case only if the structure was a permanent, stationary bed which could not be converted into a sofa. Also, please note that under the definition of designated seating position, you would be required to install at least three sets of seat belts if the sofa has hip room greater than 50 inches.

I hope this has eliminated any misunderstanding you may have had concerning this matter. If you have any further questions, please contact Hugh Oates of my staff (202-426-2992).

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

February 1, 1983

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Attention: Office of the Chief Counsel

Dear Sir:

In talking to Mr. Wilson of Transporation we were told we do not have to put seat belts on the sofa we install in our vans if we use a disclaimer.

He also said that by writing you that you would furnish us in writing that as long as we use a disclaimer we do not have to install seat belts on the sofa that is in the rear of the van.

We would appreciate it very much if you could furnish us this as soon as possible.

Thank you.

Sherrod Vans, Inc.

ID: 1983-1.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/28/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Hon. C. H. Percy, U.S. Senate

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

APR 28 1982 NOA-30

The Honorable Charles H. Percy United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Percy:

This responds to your letter of April 11, 1983 (Ref. 3098500010) requesting information on behalf of your constituent, Mrs. D. Parutti. Mrs. Parutti is concerned about the growing practice of persons installing darkly tinted film on passenger car windows. She believes this is a dangerous practice because it prevents other drivers from seeing inside the vehicles. Following is a discussion of the implications under Federal law of installing these tinting films.

A Federal regulation already exists which, under certain circumstances, precludes the practice referred to by Mrs. Parutti. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has the authority to govern the manufacture of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, we have promulgated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars) and abrasion resistance. This specification for light transmittance precludes darkly-tinted windows in new automobiles.

The agency has stated in past interpretations that solar films such as the type referred to in Mrs. Parutti's letter are not glazing materials themselves, and would not have to comply with Standard No. 205. However, installation of such films on new motor vehicles would be prohibited if the vehicle glazing no longer complied with the light transmittance or abrasion requirements of the standard. If a vehicle manufacturer or a dealer places the film on glazing in a vehicle prior to sale of the vehicle, that manufacturer or dealer has to certify that the glazing continues to be in compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 205. Section 108(a)(1) prohibits any person from offering for sale or selling any motor vehicle or equipment that fails to comply with applicable safety standards.

After a new vehicle has been sold to the consumer, he may alter his vehicle as he pleases, so long as he adheres to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner could install the tinting film on glazing in his vehicle whether or not such installation adversely affected the light transmittance and abrasion resistance of his vehicle's glazing. It should be noted, however, that section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. "Render inoperative" means to remove, disconnect or degrade the performance of a system or element of design installed pursuant to the Federal safety standards. Thus, none of those persons may knowingly install a solar film on a vehicle for its owner if that act would render inoperative the light transmittance or abrasion resistance of the vehicle glazing. Whether this would be the case would have to be determined by the person making the installation. Violation of this section can result in Federal civil penalties up to $1,000 for each violation.

The individual States must govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners since the agency does not have authority in this area. Thus, it would be up to the States to preclude owners from applying films or one-way glass on their own vehicles. Mrs. Parutti may wish to contact the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws (555 Clark Street, Evanston, Illinois 60204) to find out which States have laws that would preclude owners from placing solar film on their automobile windows.

Please contact Hugh Oates of my staff if you have any further questions (202-426-2992).

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure Constituent's Letter

April 11, 1983

TO: Ms. Carole Walls Liaison Officer National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

FROM: Charles H. Percy United States Senator

Because of the desire of this office to be responsive to all inquiries and communications, your consideration of the attached is requested. Your findings and views, in duplicate form, will be greatly appreciated.

Please reference our file number, 3098500010 and respond to:

Office of United States Senator Charles H. Percy Washington, DC 20510

Our File 3098500010

ID: 1984-3.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/31/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHSTA

TO: Yea-tung Hung, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter to this office, asking for information on the necessary steps for certifying that a rim complies with applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. You were particularly interested in how to obtain "authorization" to place the required markings on rims. Markings are only required by Standard No. 120 to appear on rims for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. However, to be certain that I answer your request fully, I will explain our requirements for both passenger car rims and rims for use on other motor vehicles.

The two applicable standards are No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims -- Passenger Cars (49 CFR @ 571.110), and No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR @ 571.120). I have enclosed copies of both these standards for your information. For passenger car rims, section S4.4 of Standard No. 110 specifies two requirements. First, the rim must be constructed to the dimensions of one of the rims that is listed under the definition of a test rim in Standard No. 109. This means that the rim must comply with the dimensional requirements shown for that rim size in the current publications of specified standardization organizations, such as the Tire and Rim Association, the European Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation, or the Japan Automobile Tire Manufacturers Association. Second, in the event of a rapid loss of inflation pressure with the vehicle traveling in a straight line at 60 miles per hour, the rim must retain the deflated tire until the vehicle can be stopped with a controlled braking application. No markings are required on rims subject to Standard No. 110.

For rims for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars, Standard No. 120 also specifies two requirements. The first requirement, set forth in section S5.1.1, is that the rims on a vehicle must correspond with the size tire on the vehicle, i.e., be listed as suitable for use with that tire size by the tire manufacturer, pursuant to either Standard No. 109 or No. 119. This would be done in the publications of the standardization organizations, as explained above. This requirement is the responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer, not the rim manufacturer, since only the vehicle manufacturer knows what size tires will actually be mounted on the rim.

The second requirement, set forth in S5.2, is that the rim be marked with five specified items of information. These are:

(1) A specified designation indicating the source of the rim's published nominal dimensions;

(2) The rim size designation and, in the case of multipiece rims, the rim type designation;

(3) The symbol DOT, which constitutes a certification by the rim manufacturer that the rim complies with the applicable requirements of the safety standards;

(4) A designation identifying the rim manufacturer by name, trademark, or symbol; and

(5) The month and year in which the rim was manufactured.

You specifically asked how to obtain "authorization from D.O.T." to engrave the symbol on the rim which indicates that it complies with the standards and regulations. As explained in Standard No. 120, this symbol is the letters "DOT". The United States does not use a certification process similar to the European countries, in which the manufacturer delivers the rims to be certified to the governmental entity, and that entity tests the rims to determine if it can be certified as complying with the applicable standards. Instead, in the United States, the individual manufacturer must certify that its rims comply with all applicable standards. Once the manufacturer determines that its rims do meet the requirements of Standard No. 120, it stamps the symbol "DOT" into those rims, without any authorization from this agency.

Should you have any further questions regarding the requirements applicable to rims, please feel free to contact me.

ENCLS.

OCC-1208

September 18, 1984

U.S. Department of Transportation Office of Chief Counsel NHTSA

Dear Sir,

This is to inquire that how to obtain the authorization from D.O.T. to engrave the symbol or words on the rim which shall indicate the quality of the rim is manufactured in accordance with the regulation set forth by the D.O.T.

On behalf of Shinn Fu Company of Taiwan, I have discussed this matter with Mr. Casanova and was told that there is not necessary to get special authorization for the rim except for the tire.

Please confirm this advice or advise us otherwise.

I am looking forward to hearing from you as soon as possible.

Yea-tung Hong

cc: SHINN FU CO.

ID: 1984-3.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/17/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Gerald D. Peltzer

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of July 18, 1984, requesting information on what safety regulations apply to a "sleeper-passenger carrier" that you manufacture. The following discussion explains the regulations applicable to your product.

Since your product is sold as an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration considers it to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. The agency has issued several Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to your product. Standard No. 126, Truck-Camper Loading, requires camper manufacturers to provide certain certification, identification and loading information on a label affixed to their product. The standard defines "camper" as "a structure designed to be mounted in the cargo area of a truck, or attached to an incomplete vehicle with motive power, for the purpose of providing shelter for persons." Since your product is designed to be mounted in the cargo area of a pickup truck and provides shelter for its occupants, it would be considered a camper and thus must comply with Standard No. 126.

You indicate in your letter that your product contains windows with "safety glass." Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, sets requirements for glazing used in motor vehicles, including campers. Standard No. 205 incorporates by reference the American National Standard "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highway," Z26.1-1977, January 26, 1977, as supplemented by Z26.1a, July 3, 1980 (ANS-Z26). The standard established both performance and labelling requirements for the glazing used in your camper.

You state that your product has a bench seat across the back and a cushion across the front. Since you describe your product as in part a "passenger carrier," it is likely that the seat and the cushion will be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion and thus would be considered a designated seating position by the agency. If your product is installed as an item of original equipment on a truck before its sale to its first purchaser, the designated seating positions must conform to the requirements of Standard No. 207, Seating Systems; Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection; Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies and Standard NO. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. I have enclosed an information sheet explaining how you can obtain copies of our safety standards.

If your product is sold as an item of aftermarket equipment to be installed by a vehicle owner, it would not be required to comply with Standards Nos. 207, 208, 209, and 210. However, we strongly recommend you do provide seat belts properly anchored at each seating position.

You are also required to comply with Part 566, Manufacturer Identification, a copy of which is enclosed. That regulation requires you to submit certain identifying information and a description of the product you produce.

Finally, as a manufacturer of an item of motor vehicle equipment, you have a responsibility under section 151 et seq. of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to conduct a notification and remedy campaign if you or the agency determines that your product contains a safety-related defect or does not comply with an applicable standard. A copy of the Act is enclosed.

If you have any further questions, please let me know. ENCLS.

July 18, 1984

Peltzer Manufacturing

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attention: Chief Council

Dear Sirs:

I am writing in regard to the safety regulations that apply to the manufacture of a sleeper-passenger carrier that mounts in the front 40" inches of a pickup box. The main outside structure is fiberglass approximately three-sixteenths of an inch thick, completely carpeted inside. It has a bench seat across the back with a backrest on each side of the door and a cushion across the front that can be folded down to make a sleeper bunk.

The unit has a 15" x 54" bi-parting safety glass in front to match the rear window of the truck cab. The side windows are 22" X 30" safety glass slider windows with screens. The front of the unit is bolted into brackets that are bolted into the front stake pockets of the truck box. The rear of the unit has 1 1/2" x 3/16" "L" shaped metal brackets that are bolted to the sleeper-passenger carrier and go under the upper ledge of the pickup box. The 22" x 36" x 1 3/8" door in the rear of the unit is mounted in an aluminum frame. I am using a Bargman L-300 motor home lock.

Enclosed find a picture and a diagram of the unit. Please send me information on how to get this unit safety approved.

Gerald D. Peltzer

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 1984-3.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/17/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: F.H. Tubbert -- Vice President, Operations, Ottawa Truck Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. F. H. Tubbert Vice PReside, Operations Ottawa Truck Corporation 415 E. Dundee St. Ottawa, KS 66047

This responds to your recent letter to this office seeking an interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars. (49 CPR 371.120). Specifically, you stated that your company has entered an agreement with a French manufacturer to market their multi-purpose vehicle in the United States. You further stated that while you have been upgrading the vehicle to comply with applicable safety standards, you have found a problem with Standard No. 120 as it applies to the tires on this vehicle. The vehicle is equipped with industrial class tires intended to provide "high flotation over various terraine". Standard No. 120 does not prohibit these multi-purpose vehicles from being equipped with industrial class tires.

Section 3 of Standard No. 120 specifies that the requirements of that standard apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks, and some other vehicle types not relevant here. A multipurpose passenger vehicle is defined in 371.3 as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." You have apparently tentatively determined that the vehicle you plan to market would be classified as a type of motor vehicle subject to Standard No. 120. Section 5.1.1 of Standard No. 120 reads as follows:

Except as specified in 3.1.3 each vehicle equipped with pneumatic tires for highway service shall be equipped with tires that meet the requirements of Standard No. 109 or Standard No. 19, and with rims that are listed by the manufacturer of the tires as suitable for use with those tires, in accordance with 4.4 of Standard No. 109 or 3.1 of Standard No. 119, as applicable. (Emphasis added)

Apparently the difficulty you perceive with this requirement is that the tires with which the vehicle is equipped are not certified as complying with Standards No. 109 or 119, nor are the rims listed as suitable for use with the tires, pursuant to the relevant sections of those standards.

However, the requirement in Standard No. 120 applies only to vehicles which are equipped with pneumatic tires for highway service. The language in section 3.1.1 of Standard No. 120 was intended to exclude these vehicles which the manufacturer decides to equip with tires other than "tires for highway service." See 42 FR 7140, at 1741; February 7, l977.

Your letter stated that the vehicle you plan to market will be equipped with "an industrial class tire which provides high flotation over various terraine". This agency does not consider industrial class tires to be tires for highway service and therefore vehicles equipped with such tires need not satisfy section 5.1.1 of Standard No. 120. For your information, a check by our Rulemaking division of the listings of industrial class tires shown in the American, Japanese, and European tire standardization organizations found no listing of the tire size which you stated would be original equipment on this vehicle (16.3/75 R 20TL). You may wish to contact the vehicle manufacturer to be sure that this size is correct, and to be sure that it is promptly categorized as an industrial class tire.

If you have any further questions or need further information on this subject, please feel free to contact Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

July 23, l984 Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, DC

Dear Sirs: Ottawa Truck Corporation has entered into an agreement with Brimont, S.A., a french company, to market their multi-purpose vehicle in the United States.

In our efforts to upgrade the vehicle to meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards we find a problem with Standards ll9 and 120, Tires and Rims. These Standards apply primarily to on-highway vehicles.

Our vehicle is an all terrain vehicle designed to be fitted with a variety of attachments to perform work off-highway and to operate occasionally on-highway between job sites. For this reason the vehicle is equipped with an industrial class tire (16.5/75R 20TL) which provides high flotation over various terrains. We request an interpretation of the application of these standards to our vehicle, whose primary use is off-highway. Sincerely, Ottawa Truck Corporation F. W. Tubbert Vice President, Operations FHT:jt

ID: 1985-01.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/28/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Jerry D. Williams -- Senior Vice President, American Transportation Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Jerry D. Williams Senior Vice President American Transportation Corporation Highway 65 South Conway, Arkansas 72032

This is in further response to your December 12, 1984 letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning our definition of a school bus. Your specific question asked, "Are vehicles which are built to carry ten school aged passengers or less, and which are used for school or related functions, considered by NHTSA to be school buses or multipurpose passenger vehicles?" As explained below, a vehicle carrying 11 or more persons (i.e., 10 children and a driver) to and from school or related events would be considered a school bus. A vehicle carrying 10 or less persons would be a multipurpose passenger vehicle.

Under the definitions section of our Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (49 CFR Part 571.3), vehicles carrying 11 or more persons which are sold for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events are "school buses." Under our regulations, a vehicle which is designed to carry less than 11 persons would considered a multipurpose passenger vehicle. Such a vehicle would be certified as complying with the safety standards applicable to multipurpose passenger vehicles.

Ms. Deirdre Hom of my staff informed your associate, Mr. Joe Clark, of the above in a telephone call on December 14, 1984. This letter confirms the information given to Mr. Clark in that conversation.

If you have any further questions, do not hesitate to contact my office.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel December 12, 1984

Mr. Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Adm. 407 Street S.W. , Room 5219 Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sir:

We, as a manufacturer school bus bodies, have for some time now been operating with the understanding that vehicles built to transport ten (10) passengers or less came under the vehicle classification designated as a multi-purpose vehicle. For this reason, we have refrained from building school bus bodies with capacities of ten passengers or less. (Please see the attached bulletin we published on this matter.)

It is recently been brought to our attention that this interpretation, which we are recently following, is not a shared practice by every manufacturer. Although we do not have actual verification of the fact, we understand NHTSA has advised some bus body manufacturers that the multi-purpose vehicle definition does not serve the intent of the public law, specifically as it relates to the transportation of ten school aged passengers or less.

We, therefore, wish to have clarification of this matter and specially to the question: Are vehicles which are built to carry ten school aged passengers or less, and which are used for school or related functions, considered by NHTSA to be school buses or multi-purpose vehicles?

We have a bid pending for several units and would appreciate your telex response by Friday, December 14, 1984. I am afraid we will lose this bid unless we can respond positively in the same manner is our competitors have responded.

Sincerely,

Jerry D. Williams Senior Vice President Marketing

JDW:jj

Attachment

TO: All AmTran Dealers FROM: Joe Clark, National Sales Manager

DATE: March 25, 1983

SUBJECT: Minimum Capacity Ratings for School Use Vanguard and Minuteman Model Bus Bodies

In order to certify a Vanguard or a Minuteman model bus body as a school bus, we must observe the federal minimum passenger capacity rating which is now set at ten (10) passengers. This minimum passenger rating does not include the driver. In the case of a lift-equipped bus, the passenger rating would translate to two (2) wheelchair passengers and eight (8) passengers seated in the fixed seating area.

For your information, if a Vanguard or Minuteman order is requested with a rating less than ten (10) passengers we must certify the bus to what is know as a multi-purpose vehicle standard. To meet this standard, other federal standards come into effect which are very stringent and extremely expensive to comply with. For this reason, we request your cooperation in always observing the minimum passenger capacity criteria of ten (10) passengers.

JCC/jj

ID: 1985-02.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/26/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Jerry D. Williams -- Senior Vice President, American Transportation Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 1/28/85 letter from Frank Berndt to Jerry D. Williams

TEXT:

Mr. Jerry D. Williams Senior Vice President American Transportation Corporation Highway 65 South Conway, Arkansas 72032

This responds to your February 13 1985 letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requesting clarification of this agency's definition of a bus. A "bus" is defined in the definitions section of our motor vehicle safety standards (49 CFR 571.3) as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons." You asked whether a vehicle's classification under our regulations is based on the seating capacity of the vehicle as designed, which may vary, or the actual seating capacity of the vehicle as manufactured.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires manufacturers to certify that their vehicles, as manufactured, comply with our safety standards. Thus, the agency uses the actual seating capacity of the vehicle as manufactured to determine the classification of the vehicle. NHTSA determines the seating capacity of a motor vehicle by identifying the number of designated seating positions in the vehicle. "Designated seating position" is defined in S571.3 as "any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design and vehicle design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats...." Consistent with this definition, we have also counted positions designed to accommodate wheelchairs in determining vehicle seating capacity for the determination of vehicle classification. Under our regulations, a vehicle having a total of more than 10 designated seating positions and wheelchair positions is a bus and a vehicle having a total of 10 or less positions is either a passenger car or a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV).

The vehicles you manufacture must be certified as meeting all the standards applicable to those vehicle types. For example, you must certify your MPV's as complying with all the safety standards applicable to MPV's. You may also voluntarily manufacture a MPV in compliance with the requirements of our school bus safety standards, as long as the vehicle continues to comply with our standards for MPV's.

In the materials you enclosed with your letter, you indicate that some of the vehicles you manufacture are equipped with wheelchair lifts. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of a final rule recently published in the Federal Register (50 FR 12029; March 27, 1985) amending Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components, to exclude doors equipped with wheelchair lifts and audible or visual alarms from the requirements of the standard.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosure

February 13, 1985

Re: Your Letter of January 28, 1985

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I am in receipt of the above referenced letter and am hereby requesting additional clarification.

In your second paragraph, second sentence, you state, "Under our regulations, a vehicle which is designed to carry less than 11 persons would be considered a multipurpose passenger vehicle."

None of the buses which we manufacture were "designed" to carry less than 11 persons. Therefore, using this scenario we should be able to modify the seating plan to seat less than 11 persons and still meet the letter of the law.

Mr. Berndt, I am in no way trying to circumvent the law or its intent. I am simply trying to remain competitive. At the present time there are at least three of our competitors selling and delivering buses which have provisions for less than 11 passengers due to the fact that they are interpreting the law according to the aforementioned scenario.

I am enclosing copies of the above referenced letter along with my correspondence to you for your ready reference and, hopefully, early reply.

Sincerely,

Jerry D. Williams Senior Vice President Marketing

JDW:gd

Enclosures [1/28/85 letter from Frank Berndt to Jerry D. Williams omitted here.]

ID: 1985-02.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/23/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Barbara Zirpoli -- Director, Jelly Bean Nursery School

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Barbara Zirpoli Director Jelly Bean Nursery School 96 Westside Avenue Bergenfield, New Jersey 07621

This responds to your January 24, 1985 letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Technical Reference Division asking about the school bus regulations issued by our agency. Your letter was referred to my office for reply.

I would like to explain that our agency has two sets of regulations, issued under different Acts of Congress, that affect school buses. The first of these, the motor vehicle safety standards issued under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. In a 1974 amendment to the Act, Congress expressly directed us to issue standards on specific aspects of school bus safety, including floor strength, seating systems, and crashworthiness. The standards we issued apply to all new school vehicles designed to carry 11 or more persons. Under the requirements of the Vehicle Safety Act and our regulations, manufacturers who sell such vehicles to schools must certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards, including the safety standards specifically issued for school buses.

In a February 28, 1985, telephone conversation with Ms. Hom of my staff, you said that the new school bus you purchased was certified as meeting all applicable safety standards. If the bus actually meets those standards, the manufacturer and dealer who sold you the bus have met their responsibilities under our regulations . Of course, as you are aware, there may be additional State requirements that school buses must meet in order to be properly licensed in New Jersey.

The second set of regulations issued by this agency was promulgated under the authority of the Highway Safety Act. These regulations, which are " actually more in the nature of guidelines, are called Highway Safety Program Standards, and apply to state highway safety programs. Highway Safety Program Standard (HSPS) No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, applies to school buses, and contains specifications on the color, identification, maintenance, and operation of school vehicles. Individual States have chosen to adopt some or all of our guidelines as their own policies governing their highway safety programs. Since HSPS No. 17 will affect you only if New Jersey has adopted it, you should check to see what State requirements are set for the operation of your school vehicles.

Mr . Barry Skokowski, Director of the Division of Local Government Services in Trenton, should be able to provide you with more information about New Jersey's requirements. He can be contacted at the following address:

Mr. Barry Skokowski Director, Division of Local Government Services Department of Community Affairs CN 803 363 West Street Trenton, New Jersey 08625 (609) 292-6613

Enclosed you will find copies of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 217, 220, 221, and 222, and HSPS No. 17, as you requested. I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Original Signed by

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosures January 24, 1985

Technical Reference Div. 900 7th. Street SW Room 5109 Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sir:

Horace Jones from the Division of Youth and Family Services in Trenton, told me to write to you to request from this office, cost free, the rules and requirements for a 16 children passenger school bus to transport nursery school children. Not one person, in Trenton, Dept. of Human Services, Div. of Youth & Family Services, Dept. of Motor Vehicles, U.S. Dept. of Transportation, salesman and school bus dealer can give me a straight answer. They all differ on many details and no one seems to be able to agree on the regulations.

I have a nursery school, only transport my own children and have S2 School busses. I just purchased a new 1985 Chevy Sturdivan, 16 children passenger school bus, Model S-O-16 to meet all N.J. Regulations. Now the inspectors at Motor Vehicle do not agree with Sturdivan Bus Co. on the regulations and requirements in New Jersey. Everybody seems to have their own set of rules.

Does anybody know?

Thank you for your help in this matter.

Sincerely,

Barbara Zirpoli DIRECTOR JELLY BEAN SCHOOL

ID: 1985-02.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/28/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Diane K. Steed; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Alan K. Simpson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

May 28, 1985 The Honorable Alan K. Simpson United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator Simpson: Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. B. Bruce Bennion, the Assistant Superintendent of Schools in Cody, Wyoming. I regret our delay in responding. I understand that Secretary Dole has recently written you on our regulations pertaining to the use by school districts of commercial-type buses as activity buses. I hope the following discussion will explain the application of our regulations to your constituent. According to Mr. Bennion's letter, the Park County School District No. 6 purchased a used 1982 American Eagle Model 10 bus in order to transport its students to school activities throughout Wyoming. The school district was recently informed that the operation of the bus violated a Federal regulation issued by this agency, and, accordingly, it ceased operation of the vehicle. Mr. Bennion asked for your help in allowing the school district to use its bus. To begin, I would like to explain that there are two sets of regulations, issued under different Acts of Congress, that could affect Park County's school buses. The first of these, the motor vehicle safety standards issued by our agency under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-563; 15 U.S.C. 1381-1426) apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. In a 1974 amendment to the Act, Congress expressly directed us to issue standards on specific aspects on school bus safety, including emergency exits, seating systems, and windows and windshields. The standards we issued became effective April 1, 1977, and apply to each school bus manufactured after that date. If Park County bought a new bus for use as an activity bus, the manufacturer and dealer had to certify that the bus complied with the motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses. Am American Eagle type bus is not manufactured to comply with these standards, and could therefore not be sold for use as a new school bus. Since Park county bought a used bus, however, the Vehicle Safety Act standards do not apply. There is nothing under the Act to prevent the school district from buying a used American Eagle bus for school use. there might, however, be an impediment under State law, if wyoming has adopted the provisions of the standard on school transportation issued by our agency under the Highway Safety Act (Public Law 89-564; 23 U.S.C. 401-408). This standard, Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17 (HSPS 17), specifies that a bus used to transport more than 16 pupils to and from school be painted yellow, be equipped with special mirrors and warning lights and be marked "School Bus." We have ruled that the States should apply these specification to activity buses as well as to the buses used for daily transportation. We have also issued instructions under HSPS 17 that any bus manufactured after April 1, 1977, the effective date of motor vehicle safety standards on school buses, should comply with those standards. I want to stress that HSPS 17 has no direct effect on the purchase of used buses by local school districts. HSPS 17 will affect Park County only if Wyoming has adopted it and if Wyoming accepts our view that the specifications apply to the activity buses. If Wyoming chooses to exempt activity buses from being painted, signed, and equipped as school buses, we might disagree with the wisdom of its decision but we would no insist on compliance with HSPS 17 to the extent of taking action against the State. Congress has given us the discretion under the Highway Safety Act not to insist that a State comply with every requirement of the highway safety standards. While we have stressed the importance of a strong pupil transportation program, consistent with HSPS 17, we have not insisted that the States comply with every feature of the standard. Having said this, I will conclude by restating the importance that our agency attaches to the use of safe buses to transport children. It remains the agency's position that a yellow school bus meeting the motor vehicle safety standards is the safest means of transportation for school children. It may not be the most comfortable for long trips, since it lacks the reclining seats and restroom facilities of the inter-city buses, but it has to cushion impacts, windows that prevent ejections, and exits that facilitate escape after crashed. In the years since buses had been a marked improvement in school features when they decide to buy a used school bus. If you have any further questions,please do not hesitate to contact my office. Again, my apologies for our delay in responding. Sincerely, Diane K. Steed Diane K. Steed