ID: nht73-3.22

DATE: 02/08/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: United States Senate

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 26, 1973, which was forwarded to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by National Transportation Safety Board Chairman John H. Reed, regarding the position of the shoulder harness on the Toyota Corona purchased by Mr. John McCauley of Mattapan, Massachusetts. A copy of the constituent's letter is enclosed.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant(Illegible Word) Protection, requires that all cars made after January 1, 1972, have lap and shoulder belts which fit specified occupant sizes. Our Office of Standards Enforcement has made telephone contact in order to obtain more detailed information on Mr. McCauley's vehicle and the exact nature of the safety belt problems which he experienced.

I appreciate Mr. McCauley's interest in motor vehicle safety and his bringing this situation to our attention. As we had recently received a similar complaint on another model Toyota automobile, our Office of Standards Enforcement is conducting an investigation of the entire matter.

ID: 1983-3.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/05/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Duane W. Duvall

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear Mr. Duvall:

We have received your letter of October 27, 1943, informing us of your plans to provide a front-end replacement kit for 1971-77 Chevrolet Vegas. You have asked whether incorporating a 1973 bumper and mounting hardware will meet safety regulations. You have also asked for a copy of front lighting requirements, and for information on how you may certify your kit for national distribution.

As you have not provided us with a description of all equipment items in the kit, I can offer only general guidance. There are very few requirements for fabricators of kits intended to modify used vehicles. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards are of two types: those that apply to vehicle systems, and those that apply to individual equipment items. The so-called "bumper standard" is an example of a systems standard. Standard No. 215, Exterior Protection, which applied to passenger cars manufactured between September 1, 1972, and Sept. 1, 1978, did not directly apply to the bumper itself but established a level of damage resistance to be met by the vehicle in low-speed frontal impacts.

On the other hand, the vehicle lighting standard applies to both lighting systems and replacement lighting equipment. The primary statutory obligation of a kit supplier lies in this area--to determine if any item of equipment in the kit is covered by an equipment standard, and then to insure that the item meets the standard. For example, Standard No. 104, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, required 1971-77 Chevrolet Vegas to be equipped with sealed beam headlamps. Here unsealed European headlamps to be furnished as part of the kit, that sale would be in violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Other equipment standards cover brake hoses, tires, brake fluids, glazing, and seat belts. Usually the manufacturer of equipment items covered by standards will certify compliance with Federal requirements by marking them with the symbol "DOT". In that event, no recertification by the kit supplier is required. A further important obligation of a kit supplier is to insure that safety-related defects are absent, or do not develop, in any motor vehicle equipment that he fabricates. If such occur, he is required to notify purchasers and remedy the defects.

There is also a provision of the Safety Act that has some relevance to your operation. Although a vehicle owner may modify his car in any manner he chooses, a restriction is established on modifications by others. That restriction is that "no device or element of design" added to a vehicle enabling it to comply with a safety standard shall be "rendered inoperative in whole or in part." Thus, were a repair shop to remove the Vega front end and replace it with yours, the shop must insure that the Vega upon reassembly remains in compliance with the standards that originally applied to it. Although the kit supplier is not required under the Safety Act to insure that the Vega continues to comply with Standard No. 215, such insurance obviously assists the modifier in meeting its Federal responsibilities, and your incorporation of a 1973 bumper and attachments is helpful. The modified Vega must also continue to meet Federal lighting requirements, such as being equipped with front side marker lamps, and having no cover or other object over the headlamps when they are in use.

To assist you, I enclose copies of Standards Nos. 108 and 215 as they were in effect on October 1, 1977, the requirements were substantially the same for the other years in which you are interested. There is no charge and I am returning your check. If you have further questions, we shall be happy to answer them.

Sincerely, Original signed by Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

October 27, 1983 Office of Chief Council 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, DC 20590

To Whom it May Concern:

A local agency referred me to this administration for some information that I need. Please send the proper pamphlets or publications.

I am designing a fiberglass front-end replacement kit for Chevrolet Vegas, years 1971-77. The rear will be unchanged, I plan to incorporate a 1973 bumper and mounting hardware, will this meet safety regulations?

I also need front exterior lighting regulations, and the procedure to certify this kit for national distribution.

Your prompt response is sincerely appreciated. I am enclosing $2 for any postage or duplication fees.

Thanks, Original signed by Duane W. Duvall (206) 766-6845 901 North Beach Rd.

Bow, VA 98232

ID: 20962.ztv

Mr. John Harland
Harland Rover Restorations
6-8 Mary St.
Stockton-on-Tees
Cleveland TS18 4AN
England

Dear Mr. Harland:

We are replying to your e-mail of October 18, 1999, with questions relating to Federal regulation of "kit cars." I apologize for the delay in our response.

You would like to import new chasses into the United States. You would also like to import bodies used previously on Land Rover 90/110 vehicles. As described in your letter, the glazing, brake hoses, brake fluid, and seat belt assemblies in these bodies will meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) that apply to these components (you didn't mention lamps and reflectors; these, too, must meet Federal requirements). The tires will be purchased in the United States. The customer will purchase the engines and transmissions "from another independent source." You have asked five questions with respect to this business plan.

"1) What is the procedure for VIN determination? i.e. how will the vehicle be titled? assuming that it would be registered in any of the 50 states."

As we have advised in a long-standing series of interpretations, the mounting of a used body to a new chassis constitutes the manufacture of a new motor vehicle which must meet all FMVSS that apply as of the date of its assembly. The vehicle would also be titled with the year of its assembly. An entity that assembles a vehicle in this manner would be a "manufacturer" under our laws, and required to ensure compliance of the vehicle with all applicable Federal requirements including the VIN (49 CFR Part 565), and to certify compliance of the vehicle (49 CFR Part 567). For example, if you were to assemble this vehicle today, it would have to meet all currently applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards such as those that prescribe criteria that must be met in frontal and side impacts.

"2) What is the licensing requirement that is necessary for a kit-car manufacturer on the federal level?"

In terms of your own operation, we would regard you as an importer of motor vehicle equipment for resale, and therefore a "manufacturer" of this equipment, subject to obligations such as notification and remedy in the event the equipment is discovered to incorporate a safety- related defect or be in noncompliance. Because certain of these equipment items are directly covered by a FMVSS, you would be required to submit a simple identification statement meeting the requirements of 49 CFR Part 566. There is no Federal "licensing" requirement.

Any manufacturer assembling one or more vehicles is also required to file a Part 566 statement. There are no Federal "licensing" requirements for manufacturers of motor vehicles.

"3) What is the requirement for the driveline installation? Must it be done by the purchaser himself? Do I have any responsibility to assure EPA conformity? Must I monitor the driveline installation and can I make any recommendation to the purchaser as to what type of driveline will be put into it (keep in mind that the buyer will want a certain type of engine and I must furnish the kit with appropriate wiring to accept that engine? Are there separate requirements for diesel engines?"

There are no "requirements" for driveline installation, but keep in mind that the entity completing the assembly of a motor vehicle is required to ensure compliance with all FMVSS, and meet certification and notification and remedy responsibilities. We cannot comment on kit car manufacturing responsibilities under EPA's regulations, and encourage you to contact that agency directly. While you may recommend drivetrains to the buyer without becoming the manufacturer of the vehicle, if you are involved in assembling the final product, you would be considered a manufacturer. The more you are involved in final operations, such as "monitoring" the installation of the drive train, the greater the possibility that you will be considered the de facto manufacturer of the vehicle with the actual assembler as your agent.

"4) What type of conformity assurance must I give to the federal government for the conformity of the vehicle parts?"

Your assurance is your statement on the HS-7 importation form that the equipment being imported conforms to all applicable FMVSS.

"5) I will be a limited production manufacturer, what is the maximum number of vehicle kits I can produce before other requirements kick in?"

Under Federal law and your business plan, you would be a "manufacturer" of all motor vehicle equipment that you import for resale. Your responsibility is to ensure that those equipment items covered by a FMVSS conform, and are certified to conform, with any applicable FMVSS. These requirements apply regardless of the number of items imported. We do not define "vehicle kits" or have requirements for them, other than requirements for the individual components as discussed in this letter.

If you have further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:571
d.6/20/00

ID: 1985-04.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/15/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Kurth Ioth -- President, Bigway America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Kurth Ioth President Bigway America, Inc. 601 E. Yorba Linda Blvd. Suite 6 Placentia, CA 92670

Thank you for your letter of August 5, 1985, concerning a product you wish to import into the United States. You asked several questions about the application of our regulations to your product. I hope the following discussion answers your questions.

According to the literature you enclosed in your letter, the product is a device which prevents the normal operation of a vehicle until the driver's safety belt is fastened. The product is installed directly beneath the vehicle's accelerator. Until the driver's safety belt is fastened, a lock system prevent, the accelerator from being depressed. According to the drawing accompanying your letter, your product requires the installation of a new buckle and latchplate in a vehicle's safety belt system. To install the latchplate, the vehicle's safety belt must be cut.

Our agency has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act 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 any commercial products. Instead, the Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. In the case of an imported product, the importer is considered the manufacturer of the product for the purposes of our requirements. In addition to ensuring that your product complies with all applicable safety standards, you are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with noncompliances or defects related to motor vehicle safety.

If your product is installed in a new vehicle prior to its first sale to a consumer, then the person performing the alteration would be considered a vehicle alterer under our certification regulation (49 CFR Part 567), a copy of which is enclosed. Part 567.7 requires alterers to certify that the vehicle, as altered, complies with all applicable safety standards. In particular, the installer of your device would have to ensure that the safety belt system still complied with all of the requirements, including the safety belt webbing strength requirement, of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies; a copy of the standard is enclosed.

- Installation of your device in a used vehicle could be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section provides, in part:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative...any device element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard....

Thus, a commercial business installing your product in a used vehicle would have to ensure that it did not knowingly render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with any of our safety standards by the installation of your device.

You also asked about our regulations concerning the importation of products. Section 110(e) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1399(e)) requires every manufacturer who offers a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment for importation into the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as his or her agent upon whom service of all processes, orders, notices, decisions and requirements may be made. In order for that designation to be valid, the following information must be submitted to the Office of the Chief Counsel:

1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made:

2. The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing address of the manufacturer:

3. Marks, trade names, or other designation of origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear its name:

4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer.

5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed, which may be an individual, a firm or a U.S. corporation; and

6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent.

In addition, the designation must be signed by one with authority to appoint the agent. The signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his or her signature.

I hope this information is of assistance to you. If you have further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures

ID: 86-4.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/06/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ann Boriskie

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION !PAR=AUTHOR

TEXT:

Ms. Ann Boriskie 6738 Firelight Lane Dallas, TX 75248

Dear Ms. Boriskie:

Thank you for your letter of June 2, 1986, asking for approval of a device you have invented which is designed to prevent children from inadvertently or intentionally opening the buckle of a safety belt. As you requested, the agency will not disclose the details of your proprietary product. Although we understand your concern that young children should not be able to easily get out of a safety belt, we have significant reservations about your product. I hope the following discussion explains those reservations and the effect of our regulations on your product.

Our agency has the authority 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 any commercial products. Instead the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates other alleged safety-related defects.

Although we do not have any standards that directly apply to your product, we do have several statutory provisions that could affect it. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as your device are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. The agency does not determine the existence of safety defects except in the context of a defect proceeding, and thus is unable to say whether your product might or might not contain such a defect. However, the agency is concerned that people be able to easily and quickly operate a safety belt in an emergency. As the agency said last year on the related topic of the force level necessary to operate buckles in child restraints:

The agency's safety concerns over child restraint buckle force release and size stem from the need for convenient buckling and unbuckling of a child and, in emergencies, to quickly remove the child from the restraint. This latter situation can occur in instances of post-crash fires, immersions, etc. A restraint that is difficult to disengage, due to the need for excessive buckle pressure or difficulty in operating the release mechanism because of a very small release button, can unnecessarily endanger the child in the restraint and the adult attempting to release the child. (50 FR 33722, August 21, 1985)

Your product could significantly increase the difficulty of using the buckle release and thus hinder a person attempting to release the belt in an emergency.

In addition, use of your product could be affected by section 108(a)12)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly tampering with devices or elements of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. We have issued two safety standards which affect safety belts. Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, requires the push-button release for a safety belt to have a minimum area for applying the release force. Installation of your device by a commercial business would be prohibited since it completely covers the safety belt push-button. In addition, Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, requires new safety belts to meet a flammability resistance requirement. Thus, although Standard No. 302 does not directly apply to aftermarket equipment, commercial businesses could not install your device if it would mean that a safety belt no longer met the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302.

The prohibition of section 108(a)(2(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who may install or remove any items of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, our policy is to encourage vehicle owners not to remove or otherwise tamper with vehicle safety equipment. Installation of your product by any person would be inconsistent with that policy.

I am returning, under separate cover, the samples of your device that you sent the agency. If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: nht72-4.37

DATE: 06/15/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Dealers Truck Equipment Co. Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 17, 1972, inquiring as to your responsibilities for the Certification of two types of vehicles you manufacture. In the first, you mount a winch behind the cab of the truck. The vehicles are then delivered to the Louisiana Highway Department who complete them by adding a fifth wheel and a tail roller. In this set of circumstances, we would consider you to be an "intermediate manufacturer", subject to the requirements of section 568.5 of the "Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages" regulations, a copy of which is enclosed.

The second operation you perform is mounting front winches on pick-up trucks. The NHTSA has taken the position that manufacturers such as you who merely add equipment to already completed vehicles may retain that vehicle's certification and need not (Illegible Word). However, if you cause the vehicle not to conform to any motor vehicle safety standard, you will be in violation of Section 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)) and may be subject to civil penalties.

ID: 1985-02.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/30/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. John K. Park

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. John K. Park Consultant, Hyundai Motor Company 7314 Nineteen Mile Road Sterling Heights, Michigan 48074

Dear Mr. Park:

This is in reply to your letter of May 3, 1985, asking for an interpretation of the center high-mounted stoplamp provisions of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You stated that the Hyundai lamp is "obscured slightly by the rear window wiper arm" but that "the effective projective luminous lens area exceeds 4.5 square inches". You asked whether the wiper arm is considered an obstruction to the lamp.

The agency answered a similar question from Mazda in its response to petitions for reconsideration of the stoplamp requirements published on May 17, 1984 (copy enclosed). NHTSA advised that compliance of the lamp would be judged with a rear wiping system in the design off position, and that photometric conformance would be judged thereby. The lamp must be positioned in such a way that it will comply when tested at any of the photometric test points specified in the standard with the wiper system in the design off position.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosure

May 3, 1985 Mr. Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 400 Seventh Street Southwest Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Miller.

Regarding FMVSS No. 108: Our High Mounted Stoplamp is obscured slightly by the rear window wiper arm according to our current design. The design ensures, however, the effective projected luminous area exceeding 4.5 square inches satisfactory to S4.1.1.41.

Do you consider the rear wiper arm described above as an obstruction to the lamp: We need a correct interpretation from you. I am including a sketch copy for your reference.

Sincerely yours,

John K. Park Consultant to Hyundai Motor Company

JKP/bks

encl.

ID: 20409.drn

Mr. Rod Nash
Vice President - Engineering
Collins Bus Corporation
P. O. Box 2946
Hutchinson, KS 67504-2946





Dear Mr. Nash:

This responds to your request for interpretation of the requirements of Federal law applicable to the sale of buses intended to be used for the transportation of children by day care providers. I regret the delay in this response. Your questions are answered below.

Your first question is: if a day care center wishes to purchase a bus to transport its children to their homes, what kind of assurances does it need to provide a dealer or manufacturer that the intended use does not dictate a school bus? You note that the user is the only person who can actually know how the bus will be used during its life.

You ask your question against the following background. As you know, any person selling a new "school bus" must sell a bus that meets our school bus standards. Our statute defines a "schoolbus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying a driver and more than 10 passengers and which, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) decides, is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events. 49 U.S.C. 30125. By regulation, the capacity threshold for school buses corresponds to that of buses -- vehicles designed for carrying more than ten (10) persons (49 CFR 571.3(b)).

Our longstanding position has been that day care centers in and of themselves are not "schools" within the meaning of our statute because of their primarily custodial, rather than educational, emphasis. However, when a day care center is providing transportation to or from school or school-related events, then the transportation constitutes the described action -transporting students to or from school-contemplated by the statute. As you may be aware, in a letter of July 23, 1998, to Mr. Don Cote of Northside Ford (copy enclosed), we advised that when a dealership sells or leases a new bus to a child care facility to drop off and pick up school children from school "on regular school days," the dealership must sell or lease only a bus that meets the Federal motor vehicle safety standards for school buses.

There is no definitive answer to your question, but I will provide a basic guideline. We currently do not presume that day care centers universally are engaged in the transportation of children to or from school. In addition, some day care centers are sole proprietorships and some do not have a term such as "Day Care Center" in their names. However, where it is likely that the purchaser or lessor of a new bus is a day care center, in light of the widespread publicity that has surrounded the issue, we expect a dealer to inquire as to whether the vehicle would also be used to drop off or pick up students from school. If it appears that a vehicle will be used significantly for student transportation, the requirement to sell a certified school bus that meets the Federal motor vehicle safety standards for school buses would apply. Confirmation in writing would appear to be prudent.

Your second question is: whether it is possible for State law to "direct" transportation for school children in vehicles other than school buses? NHTSA's laws apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. Each State has the authority to set its own standards regarding the use of motor vehicles, including school buses, for the transportation of school children. We are not aware of any State that "directs" the use of buses other than school buses for this purpose, although some States permit the use of non-school buses. In any event, a State "directive" to transport children in vehicles other than school buses would not affect dealers' responsibilities under Federal law with respect to the sale or lease of new buses for pupil transportation.

Our "school bus" definition determines which new vehicles sold or leased by dealers are required under Federal law to meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards for school buses. If a State has a different school bus definition, that definition determines the applicability of State requirements, but it has no effect on the Federal requirement on dealers to sell certified school buses. To illustrate, if a State chooses to define "school bus" to include only buses with a capacity of 15-passengers or more, that definition would not affect the obligation of dealers in selling or leasing 10- to 14-passenger buses under Federal law. If a dealer sold or leased a new bus of this size for school transportation, the dealer would have to ensure that the bus was certified to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses.

Your third question is: how does a day care center obtain a vehicle that a State says it should use, even though it would be a vehicle that NHTSA prohibits a dealer from selling as new? As above, we are not aware of any State that "says" a day care center should not use a school bus to carry children to or from school. The fact that States may permit the use of such vehicles does not affect Federal requirements. Under Federal law, a dealer may not sell any new bus for the transportation of children to or from school or school-related activities unless the bus has been certified by its manufacturer as complying with all Federal school bus standards. Thus, State law could not permit dealers to sell new, noncomplying 15-passenger vans for pupil transportation. In general, we understand that vehicles that meet Federal and various State standards are available.

In fully addressing the type of vehicle that should be used to transport children, I also bring the following matter to your attention. At a June 8, 1999, public meeting, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) issued the attached abstract of a special investigative report on nonconforming buses. The NTSB issued the report after investigating in 1998 and 1999, four crashes in which 9 people were killed and 36 injured when riding in "nonconforming buses." NTSB defines "nonconforming bus" as a "bus that does not meet the FMVSSs specific to school buses." Most of the victims, including eight of the fatalities, were children.

In the abstract of its report, the NTSB issued several Safety Recommendations, including the following that was directed to the Governors of the Fifty States and the Mayor of the District of Columbia:

Require that all vehicles carrying more than 10 passengers (buses) and transporting children to and from school and school related activities, including, but not limited to Head Start programs and day care centers, meet the school bus structural standards or the equivalent as set forth in 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 571. Enact regulatory measures to enforce compliance with the revised statutes.

The NTSB also issued the following Safety Recommendation to child care providers such as the National Association of Child Care Professionals, the National Child Care Association, and Young Mens' and Young Women's Christian Associations:

Inform your members about the circumstances of the accidents discussed in this special investigation report and urge that they use school buses or buses having equivalent occupant protection to school buses to transport children.

In conclusion, we wish to emphasize that school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country, and that we therefore strongly recommend that all buses that are used to transport school children be certified as meeting NHTSA's school bus safety standards. In addition, using buses that do not meet NHTSA's school bus standards to transport students could result in liability in the event of a crash.

I am also enclosing NHTSA's publication: "School Bus Safety: Safe Passage for America's Children." This brochure explains the safety enhancements of a school bus that makes school buses safer than non-school buses, such as 15-person vans.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's programs please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Information about NTSB's nonconforming bus report is available from the NTSB's Public Affairs Office at (202) 314-6100.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:VSA#571.3
d.5/9/01

ID: nht76-2.1

DATE: 05/04/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Mark Schwimmer; NHTSA

TO: FILE

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: SUBJECT: TELEPHONE CONVERSATION CONCERNING STANDARD NO. 120, TIRE SELECTION AND RIMS FOR MOTOR VEHICLES OTHER THAN PASSENGER CARS

On April 20, 1976, I received a telephone call from Mr. John McCuen, an attorney for Kelsey-Hayes (313 941-2000). He asked the following questions concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120:

1. "Is use of the 'DOT' symbol permitted on rims manufactured before the August 1, 1976, effective date for the standard's rim marking requirements?" I replied that the agency's present position is as it has been in the past, namely, that such use is not permitted. I added that this interpretation is being reevaluated.

2. "Some rims are capable of being used on passenger cars as well as on multipurpose passenger vehicles. Is it permissible to label such rims pursuant to Standard No. 120, even though some might then be mounted on passenger cars?" I requested that Mr. McCuen send in a request for a written interpretation of that aspect of the standard.

3. "May rims manufactured before August 1, 1976, be sold in the replacement market after that date?" I replied that they may.

ID: nht90-4.37

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: October 8, 1990

FROM: Jack Barben -- President, Custom Form Mfg. Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-25-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Jack Barben (A37; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Our company has developed a lighted side rail for pick-up trucks which we will sell in the aftermarket. Please see enclosed pictures. These rails would be offered in an amber, hot pink and hot yellow. They would not be exposed directly to the rear as the mounting fixtures which contain the source light are opague. Our installation literature would caution against mounting on the cab roof or on the tailgate or front rail where they could be exposed directly to the front or rear. Also we would give i nstructions for seperate fusing of the electrical supply lines.

Would you please comment to me in writing regarding your departments position on compliance on this product.

This is a proprietary product and would appreciate your treatment as such.

Attachment

Photo of lighted side rails for pick-up trucks (Text and photo omitted)