ID: 1984-3.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/03/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. John J. Futini (Fotini)

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. John J. Futini 1012 Terra Verde Drive Napa, California 94559

Your letter of October 21, 1984, to the Bureau of Motor Safety, Federal Highway Administration, has been forwarded to us for reply.

You have developed a lighting device for mounting on the rear of trucks, "which operates at low speeds, activates and deactivates automatically through the use of electronics, sends a brilliant and instantaneously flashing amber light to the rear for some distance; the result being to ward off or warn fast approaching vehicles... of the presence of a slow moving truck ahead." You have asked for our views regarding the legality of such a device.

We will consider your device as both original and aftermarket equipment. This agency issues and enforces the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. These standards apply to the manufacture of vehicles. Standard No. 108 is the standard applicable to vehicle lighting. Paragraph S4.6 of Standard No. 108 specifies that certain lamps shall flash when activated (e.g., turn signals), that others may be flashed for signaling purposes (e.g., side marker lamps), but, however, that all other lamps shall be steady-burning. We interpret this prohibition to include devices such as yours which are not mandated as original equipment but which might be installed on a vehicle prior to its sale to a customer. Therefore, a vehicle equipped with your device as original equipment or added before sale would appear to fail to comply with paragraph S4.6 of Standard No. 108.

After a truck has been sold, however, the Federal standards no longer determine the legality of the device. If the owner of a vehicle wishes to install a lamp of this nature, he should be aware that its legality is determined by laws of the State in which the vehicle is registered, and where it will be operated. If the vehicle is subject to the operational requirements of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, the regulations of that agency would apply as well.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

21 October 1984

Mr. Ralph Hitchcock Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards Federal Highway Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Hitchcock:

Enclosed you will find a copy of a letter mailed to Mr. Kenneth L. Pierson, Director, Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety. I invite your comments on the subject matter. Any assistance rendered would be greatly appreciated. Sincerely yours, John J. Futini

10/29/84

Mr. Taylor Vincent,

Per our conversation this date, I am transferring the attached letter for you to handle.

Thank you.

August Burgett 21 October 1984 Mr. Kenneth L. Pierson Director, Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety Federal Highway Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590 Dear Mr. Pierson: This letter is written to you with the intention principally of getting an official view from federal government, or at the least federal input into a project which I have been working on for some time that has to do with highway trucks and safety. Your name was obtained from the latest US government manual on departments and agencies as was the name of the person which appears below to whom a copy of this letter is being sent. I selected the names after close study and assume that I am addressing the contents here to the right people. If not, would you kindly send it on to the proper agency. Instead of going into an elaborate dissertation regarding description of my project, which possibly at some later date I can send a detailed version, I would like to briefly state that I have developed a safety lighting device for highway trucks that attaches to the rearmost point of these vehicles which operates at low speeds, activates and deactivates automatically through the use of electronics, sends a brilliant and instantaneously flashing amber light to the rear for some distance; the result being to ward off or warn fast approaching vehicles, mainly automobiles, of the presence of a slow moving truck ahead. The idea for this device was born from many years of my driving these same heavy vehicles and witnessing sadly the tragic aftermath of a shattering rear-end collision involving a slow truck and a fast automobile, making me realize the urgent need for something to prevent these usually fatal accidents from happening. It has taken many years to develop this truck safety light, going through the frustrations of lack of technical know-how, the near absence of sophisticated electronics in the beginning, trying to find qualified people to assist, etc. I finally have reached a somewhat successful stage in which I now have a working test model that is presently going through a patentability search to determine its uniqueness. While this search is going on, what I need to know is the federal government's view concerning the legality of the application of this truck safety light and if there are existing federal regulations governing the types of lighting that highway trucks may have at their rearmost point, and whether or not it is possible for my light to become a reality on the road. In conclusion, I wish to emphasize that I am only interested in applying my warning light to highway rigs strictly and as an accessory item. I believe it to be a direly needed truck safety feature whose time has come. Sincerely yours, John J. Fotini copy: Mr. Ralph Hitchcock, Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards.

ID: 1985-01.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/22/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mandan Public School District

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your December 3, 1984 letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning the use of Greyhound-type buses to transport school children to school-related activities. You stated that the Mandan Public School District is considering purchasing 1963 and 1965 model year Greyhound-type buses for the purposes of transporting elementary and secondary students to activity events. Your first question asked whether this would be allowed under our regulations on school buses.

To begin, I would like to explain that there are two sets of regulations, issued under different Acts of Congress, that could affect Mandan's choice of 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 of school bus safety, including emergency exits, seating systems, window and windshields, and bus structure. The standards we issued became effective April 1, 1977, and apply to each school bus manufactured on or after that date. If Mandan had planned to buy a new bus for use as an activity bus, the manufacturer and dealer must certify that the bus complies with the motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses.

Since Mandan plans to buy 1963 and 1965 model year buses, however, the Vehicle Safety Act standards do not apply. There is nothing under that Act to prevent Mandan from buying a bus that was manufactured before the effective date of the school bus safety standards for school use. There might, however, be an impediment under State law, if North Dakota 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 should 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 specifications to activity buses as well as to the buses used for daily transportation.

I want to stress that HSPS 17 has no direct effect on Mandan's purchase of 1963 and 1965 model year buses. HSPS 17 will affect Mandan only if North Dakota has adopted it and if North Dakota accepts our view that the specifications apply to activity buses. If North Dakota 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 not insist on compliance with HSPS 17 to the extent of taking action against the State. Congress has given us 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, however, I would like to restate 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 Greyhound-type buses, but it has safety features that the Greyhound-type buses that you are considering lack, such as seat backs designed to cushion impacts, windows that prevent ejections, and exits that facilitate escape after crashes. In the years since buses began to be manufactured with these features, there has been a marked improvement in school bus safety. These are features that Mandan should consider before it decides to buy a Greyhound-type bus.

Your second question asked whether Mandan may charter Greyhound-type buses from a common carrier to transport students to school-related events.

Again, Mandan would not be precluded from chartering Greyhound-type buses if North Dakota has not adopted our view that the specifications of HSPS 17 apply to activity buses.

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

SINCERELY,

Mandan Public School District

December 3, 1984

Frank A. Brendt Chief Council NHTSA

Dear Mr. Brendt:

During a telephone conversation with Mr. David Soul, it was suggested that I request clarification from you on the following questions:

(A) The Mandan Public School District is considering the purchase of a 1963 and a 1965 Greyhound-type bus to transport elementary and secondary students to activity events. Is this legal and will the district be in conformance with Federal regulations? If not, what are the possible legal ramifications?

(B) May the Mandan Public School District charter buses from a common carrier who uses the same vehicles (Greyhound-type), to transport elementary and secondary students to activity type functions? If not, why, and what are the legal ramifications if we do?

Thank you for your prompt response.

Gordon G. Berge Business Administrator Mandan Public School District

ID: 1985-01.51

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/20/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey E.Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. A. R. Fisher

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. A. R. Fisher Manager, Environmental Affairs New United Motor Manufacturing Inc. 45500 Fremont Boulevard Fremont, California 94538

Dear Mr. Fisher:

This is in response to your letter of October 5, 1984, to Mr. Vinson of this office. Please accept our apologies for the delay in responding.

Under the assumptions that your Fremont plant has been granted Foreign Trade Zone status and that light-duty engines are "certified at time of entry," you have asked for confirmation that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not require a DOT HS-7 Form for the engines.

Motor vehicle engines are not subject to any form of certification to DOT requirements, and no HS-7 Form is required for them under any circumstances.

You have also asked for confirmation that no HS-7 need be filed for finished vehicles entering the stream of commerce of the United States provided that they are produced at the Fremont plant and are in compliance at the time of delivery.

For Customs purposes, motor vehicles manufactured in Foreign Trade Zones within the United States are not considered as subject to importation requirements until they leave the Zone and enter the Customs Territory of the United States. Under the joint DOT-Treasury (Customs) regulation governing importation of vehicles subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, a declaration must be given (usually the Form HS-7) when vehicles enter the United States, even if they bear the certification of compliance to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (19 C.F.R. 12.80(b)(1)(ii)). Technically, Customs could require declarations for all vehicles manufactured in the Zone at Fremont.

However, declarations may be waived for certified U.S., Mexican, or Canadian-registered vehicles arriving at land borders (19 C.F.R. 12.80(f)), at the discretion of the District Director of the border crossing involved. We view the Fremont Trade Zone situation as analogous, and you may inform the local District Customs Director that this agency would have no objection if the declaration requirement were waived for the cars to be produced at Fremont. Should the District Director decide that authority was lacking for such a waiver, your recourse would appear to be to petition the U.S. Customs Service for rulemaking to amend Section 12.80(f) to include certified but unregistered vehicles produced within Foreign Trade Zones.

In closing, we request that your company file a Manufacturer Identification statement with this agency as required by 49 C.F.R Part 566.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

October 5, 1984

Mr. Taylor Vinson National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Dept. of Transportation 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Vinson:

This letter is a follow up to a conversation last week with Mr. Clive Van Orden concerning the enclosed letter of August 17, 1984. I would like to reconfirm that NHTSA does not need to receive nor require DOT HS Form 7 for light-duty engines imported by New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc. (NUMMI) for the purpose of new vehicle production, providing that such engines are certified at the time of entry and the Fremont plant has been granted Foreign Trade Zone status. If the above understanding is correct we would appreciate receiving a confirmation letter.

Also, please advise us if the filing of DOT HS Form 7 will not be necessary for finished vehicles entered into the commerce of the United States provided such vehicles 1) are produced at the Fremont plant and 2) are in compliance at the time of delivery.

Sincerely,

A.R. Fisher, PhD Manager, Environmental Affairs

cc: E. Muirhead - NUMMI T. Welte - U.S. Customs

August 17, 1984

Mr. Clive Van Orden National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Dept. of Transportation 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Van Orden:

As a follow up to our conversation last week, I would like to reconfirm that NHTSA does not need to receive nor require DOT HS form 7 for engines imported by New United Motor Mfg. Inc. (NUMMI) for the purpose of new vehicle production, providing that such engines are certified at the time of entry and the Fremont plant has been granted Foreign Trade Zone status. If the above understanding is correct we would appreciate receiving a confirmation letter.

Also, please advise us if the filing of DOT HS form 7 will not be necessary for finished vehicles entered into the commerce of the United States provided such vehicles 1) are produced at the Fremont plant and 2) are in compliance at the time of delivery.

Sincerely,

Anthony Fisher. Ph.D Manager - Environmental Affairs

cc: e. Muirhead - NUMMI T. Welte - U.S. Customs

ID: 1985-02.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/10/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Lynn R. Metzger

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Lynn R. Metzger President Mid Bus Inc. P.O. Box 1985 Lima, Ohio 45802

Dear Mr. Metzger:

This responds to your February 22, 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).

You asked why you are not permitted to build a 6 passenger MPV exactly as you manufacture a school bus. As a MPV, your vehicle must be certified as meeting all of the standards applicable to that vehicle type. You may also voluntarily manufacture the vehicle 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.

A final rule was recently published in the Federal Register (50 FR 12029; March 27, 1985) amending 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. Since you expressed an interest in that amendment, I have enclosed a copy of the final rule for your information.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosure

February 22, 1985

Ms. Diedre Hom U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 400 Seventh Street SW Washington. D. C. 20590

Dear Ms. Hom:

Thank you for discussing the 10 passenger school bus vs. multipurpose vehicle situation. As was mentioned, Mid Bus feels the regulation stating "A vehicle which is designed to carry...." is the key to this situation. We believe design means the actual capacity the body can hold. In the case of Mid Bus van, our unit is designed to carry 16 passenger. It can, at the request of a customer, be built to carry less than 10 passengers for purpose of transporting wheelchair passengers. The design of the vehicle has not changed, just the carrying capacity.

You will find enclosed floor plan showing Mid Bus units with capacities 16, 15, 10, and 6. The design of the six passenger unit is still a 16-passenger unit. It is built to carry 6.

From a liability stand point, we feel more secure building a 6 passenger vehicle exactly like we do a 16 passenger. Logically, why should people be afforded less protection going to and from school because the bus is under ten passengers?

As further discussed, we are aware of the multi-purpose vehicle specifications. You mentioned the petition for exemption from the door lock specs for vehicles with lift doors with buzzers. We feel this exemption would help, but it really attacks the problem from the back door.

Continued..........

We prefer to build school buses even if the build capacity falls below 10. Clarification of the statement "designed to" is requested. One suggestions would be an identification plate stating:

Design Capacity 16 Seating Capacity 9

In this example, the manufacturer states what the unit is designed for and also the capacity to which it is built.

Your time on the phone is appreciated and we request further review of our position.

Cordially,

Lynn R. Metzger, President

LRM:pas

CC: Frank Berndt - Chief Counsel U. S. Dept. of Transportation

ID: 1985-02.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/19/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Charles E. Gillipsie -- President, Salem Quality Equipment, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Charles E. Gillipsie President Salem Quality Equipment, Inc. 501 East 8th Street Salem, Virginia 24153-6385

This responds to your April 30, 1985 letter asking if your leasing company is allowed to occasionally rent 10- and 15-passenger vans to schools for special school activity trips. As Ms. Hom of my staff informed you in a telephone conversation on April 26, 1985, you are not prohibited by Federal statute or regulation from renting vans to schools on a one-time or very occasional basis.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. The parties directly affected by the Vehicle Safety Act are manufacturers of new school buses and persons selling new school buses. The Vehicle Safety Act prohibits those parties from selling new buses for use as school buses if those vehicles do not comply with the Federal school bus safety standards.

When Congress passed the 1974 amendments to the Vehicle Safety Act, Congress adopted the following definition of a "school bus": "Schoolbus means a passenger motor vehicle which is designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which the Secretary determines is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools...." (Emphasis added.)

Two basic considerations are relevant, therefore, to the Vehicle Safety Act's definition of a "school bus" and the applicability of the Act's requirements to school bus sellers. The first is the vehicle's passenger capacity, and second, its intended use. If you buy a new 12- or 15-passenger van to rent to schools on a regular basis, that van would be a "school bus," since it would have the passenger capacity of a "bus" and is school bus," since it would have the passenger capacity of a "bus' and is "likely to be significantly used" to carry school children. A dealer or distributor who sells you the new van would have to ensure that the van meets our school bus safety standards. Conversely, the less frequently a bus is used for school service, the less likely it is that its use is "significant." If you use your van to carry students on a very infrequent basis, as the case appears to be, then it would not bc considered a "school bus," and the van would not have to meet the school bus safety standards.

In your letter, you referred to a Federal Register notice (40 FR 60033; December 31, 1975) that amended NHTSA's regulatory definition of a "school bus" and discussed leasing arrangements. NHTSA's definition of a school bus covers buses "sold or introduced in interstate commerce for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events." The notice explained that NHTSA's definition includes buses "introduced in interstate commerce" in order to account for those situations where buses are leased to schools for transporting students. You asked for clarification of this discussion.

The term "introduction in interstate commerce" and the reference in the Federal Register notice to leasing arrangements addressed those situations where a new bus is leased by a manufacturer, distributor or dealer directly to a school or school district. In those situations, there is no sales transaction involved. When a new bus is leased to a school or school district directly from its manufacturer, distributor or dealer, the Vehicle Safety Act requires that the bus must comply with the school bus safety standards.

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

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

April 30, 1985

Jeffrey R. Miller Office of Chief Counsel Nations Highway Traffic Administrations R5219, 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20596

Dear Mr. Miller:

We rent and lease 15 and 21 passenger vans to colleges, churches and other businesses. We have had several requests from public and private schools to rent these vehicles for special trips or small groups, normally 10 to 15 students. We have always refused because of the Preamble To Amendment To Part 571 ---- Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

Recently Roanoke City asked for a van to take 11 students on a special camping trip on the Virginia Coast. We refused, so the instructor rented a motor home. One of the patrons was upset and called Deirie Hom, she advised us that we would not be in violation to rent these vehicles for a short term. I can understand the school concern because driving a large school bus from Roanoke to Washington is quite an expense and certainly not comfortable.

As a school bus distributor I certainly do not plan to sell or lease these type vehicles to a public or private school, however, I would like the opinion of your department concerning short term rental for special field trips.

Your consideration and response to this request would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

SALEM QUALITY EQUIPMENT, INC.

Charles E. Gillipsie, President

CEG/tah

ID: 1985-03.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/05/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Donald W. Riegle

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

July 5, 1985 The Honorable Donald W. Riegle, Jr. SD-185 United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 Attn: Mike Manual Dear Senator Riegle: This letter is in further response to your inquiry concerning school bus seating issues raised by your constituent, Mr. Dennis Furr. I regret the delay in our response. Mr. Furr is interested in amending our safety standards to limit the number of passengers that a school bus may carry. He suggests reducing the passenger capacity of a standard 72-passenger school bus by the use of different seat configurations. I would like to begin by explaining that our agency has two sets of regulations, issued under different acts of Congress, that apply to school buses. The first of these, the motor vehicle safety standards issued under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381-1426), apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. In a 1974 amendment to the Vehicle Safety Act, Congress directed us to issue standards on specific aspects of school bus safety, such as seating systems, windows and windshields, emergency exits, and fuel systems. The standards we issued became effective April 1, 1977, and apply to each school bus manufactured on or after that date. One of those standards is Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. Your constituent is correct that our safety standards so not limit the overall passenger capacity of a school bus. This is because the agency is not aware of any safety problem associated with the way manufacturers rate the capacity of their buses. We believe that manufacturers should be able to design their school buses to carry any number of passengers, provided that the appropriate occupant requirements of Standard No. 222 are met. Paragraph S4.1 of Standard No. 222 states that: The number of seating positions considered to be in a bench seat is expressed by the symbol W, and calculated as the bench width in inches divided by 15 and rounded to the nearest whole number. The number of seating positions in a bench seat, expressed by "W," is calculated to determine the amount of force school bus seats must withstand in order to provide adequate crash protection for passengers. School bus seats must comply with the standard's requirements for forward and rearward performance by withstanding specified amounts of applied energy. The amount of energy applied to a particular bench seat is dependent on the number of seating positions. As that number increases, the amount of force the seat must withstand likewise increases.

In accordance with S4.1, a 39-inch bench seat is assumed to have 3 designated seating positions. We recognize that such seats may be occupied by fewer persons, but that calculation helps to assure that the seat provides adequate protection when occupied by the maximum number. School buses with 24 39-inch bench seats are therefore assumed to carry 72 passengers. The school bus manufacturer must ensure that each bench seat meets the forward and rearward performance requirements, and all other applicable requirements of Standard No. 222, based on the calculations of seating positions and the required force applications. Mr. Furr suggests alternative seating configurations for school buses. He suggests that bench seats on a school bus, currently designated by a manufacturer to carry 72 passengers, should be designed with rows of 47-inch and 31-inch bench seats. Mr. Furr believed that a 47-inch bench seat and a 31-inch bench seat could carry 3 and 2 passengers, respectively, for a total passengers capacity of 60 for the school bus. He suggests a change in the regulation to reflect this design change. NHTSA is not aware of any data indicating that there is a safety problem associated with the seating capacity of school buses to justify a rule-making action amending Standard No. 222. From our experience with Standard No. 222, some school districts appear to have concerns that actions reducing seating capacity in their vehicles might result in the need to purchase additional buses at substantial costs. Since we are not aware of any information indicating that a safety need exists to regulate the capacity of a school bus, we do not believe that it is necessary to amend Standard No. 222 in the manner suggested by Mr. Furr. Further, no amendment is necessary to permit local school districts to order seat configurations such as those suggested by Mr. Furr. The districts may do so now as long as manufacturers can ensure that their school buses meet all the applicable performance requirements of our safety standards. The second set of regulations administered by NHTSA was issued under the authority of the Highway Safety Act of 1966 (23 U.S.C. 401-408). Those regulations, which are more in the nature of guidelines, apply to state highway safety programs and cover a wide range of subjects, including school buses. Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17 (HSPS 17), Pupil Transportation Safety, contains guidelines for the identification, maintenance, and operation of school vehicles. HSPS 17 does not set a limit on the seating capacity of school buses. It does, however, recommend that school districts design their bus routes to utilize fully the capacity of the bus, while avoiding standees. You may wish to consult with the State of Michigan to determine to what extent that state has adopted the provisions of HSPS 17. Again, my apologies for the delay in responding. I hope this information is helpful in responding to your constituent. Please let us know if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosure: Constituent's Correspondence

ID: 1985-03.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/09/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: V. Stuart James -- Executive Vice President, X-Ten Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. V. Stuart James Executive Vice President X-Ten Corporation 855 Sansome Street San Francisco, California 94111

This responds to your letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff, asking for an interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 121 Air Brake Systems (49 CFR S571.121). Specifically you asked if the timing requirements of S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 must be satisfied by trailers which are "heavy hauler trailers" within the meaning of S4. As Mr. Kratzke told you conversation, heavy hauler trailers are exempted from all the requirements of S5.3, including the timing requirements.

You stated that your company is manufacturing extendable container chassis trailers. The brake lines in those vehicles are designed to extend with the vehicle frame. S4 of Standard No. 121 defines, in part, a heavy hauler trailer as a trailer whose "brake lines are designed to adapt to separation or extension of the vehicle frame...." Thus, your trailer would be considered a heavy hauler trailer for the purposes of Standard No. 121.

Section S5.3 sets forth road test requirements, compliance with which must be certified for all trucks, buses and trailers. Generally, all trailers are required to be certified as complying with the timing requirements of S5.3.3 and S5.3.4. This general rule is limited by the last sentence of S5.3, which specifies, "However, a heavy hauler trailer and the truck and trailer portions of an auto transporter need not meet the requirements of S5.3." Emphasis added Thus, heavy hauler trailers are expressly exempted from all of the requirements of S5.3, including the timing requirements.

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

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

May 24, 1985

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

I refer you to our telephone conversation of Wednesday, May 22, 1985 reference X-Ten Corporation's extendable container chassis trailer, VersachassisTM. You may recall that a clarification is needed on the applicability of 49 CFR 571.121 Paragraphs S 5.3.3 and S 5.3.4. The trailer in its present form meets all requirements of 49 CFR 571.121 but may not meet the timing requirements detailed in these paragraphs.

It is X-Ten's submission that the trailer is not required to meet the timing specification because the trailer is classifiable as a "heavy hauler trailer" or other specially equipped trailer in accordance with 49 CFR 571.121 Paragraph S 4 "Definitions". One of the characteristics of a "heavy hauler trailer" is defined as having "brake lines designed to adapt to separation or extension of the vehicle frame". This characteristic and language precisely describe the air line arrangement on X-Ten's trailer.

Further, Truck Trailer Manufacturer's Association Recommended Practice number RP 58-81 dated June 10, 1981 (copy enclosed) suggest that the trailer is exempt from the timing requirement. The method and series of decisions used to reach this conclusion are marked on the "flow chart" enclosed.

The trailer has a tare weight of approximately 8,200 pounds, a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of 60,000 pounds, a Gross Axle Weight Rating intermediate (1) of 26,000 pounds, and a Gross Axle Weight Rating intermediate (2) of 34,000 pounds.

To summarize, X-Ten Corporation understands that the trailer is to comply with all aspects of 49 CFR 571.121 except Paragraphs S 5.3.3 and S 5.3.4 from which the trailer is specifically excluded. X-Ten would appreciate an opinion expressed by the Office of Chief Counsel to either confirm or refute this understanding.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Very truly yours, V. Stuart James Executive Vice President VSJ:eg

ID: 1985-03.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/10/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; SOURCE UNAVAILABLE

TO: Mr. Donald H. Giberson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

U.S. Department of Transportation

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Mr. Donald H. Giberson Assistant Director Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Law and Public Safety 25 South Montgomery Street Trenton, New Jersey 08666

Dear Mr. Giberson:

Thank you for your letter of May 17, 1985, to Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning the decorative etching of glazing in vehicles and how it may be affected by our regulations. You explained that the etching is apparently being done by using either vibrator tools with carbide tips, ultra high speed grinders, or sandblasters. You expressed concern that the integrity of the glass may be affected and in some cases the etching is in a position that obstructs the vision of the driver.

You further explained that glazing with etching that obstructs the driver's vision is rejected by your inspectors during New Jersey's annual motor vehicle inspection, but that glazing in areas not used for driving vision cannot be rejected for the same reason. You asked for our comments on this issue.

I hope that the following discussion of how our regulations could affect the practice of etching glass is of assistance. As you know, our agency has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which sets performance requirements for glazing materials used in new vehicles or sold as items of replacement equipment; a copy of Standard No. 205 is enclosed. If the windows are etched before the vehicle or the piece of replacement glazing is sold, then the person doing the etching would have to certify that the glazing continues to be in compliance with all of the requirements of Standard No. 205, including the light transmittance requirement for glazing in areas requisite for driving visibility. We would be particularly concerned whether the etched items of glazing would continue to comply with the impact resistance requirements of the standard. Please note that impact tests have to be met by items of AS1, AS2, AS3, AS4, AS5, AS8, AS9, AS1O, AS11A, AS11B and AS14 glazing regardless of whether the glazing is used in an area requisite for driving visibility. Purchasers of a new vehicle or glazing may themselves alter the vehicle or glazing as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements.

If the etching is done in used vehicles, then Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act may apply; a copy of that section of the Act is enclosed. That section 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. Thus, none of those persons may etch a vehicle's glazing if by so doing they would knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle's glazing with Standard No. 205. Violation of this section can result in Federal civil penalties up to $1,000 for each violation.

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

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

May 17, 1985

Mr. Stephen Oesch Office of Chief Council NHTSA 400 - 7th Street S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Oesch:

It has come to our attention that the glazing on many vehicles registered in New Jersey, is being decoratively etched after it has been installed in the vehicle by the manufacturer. We know of three methods being used to etch the glass.

Most people are using vibrator tools with carbide tips, but others are using ultra high speed grinders or sandblasting techniques. The vibrators often leave grooves in the glass deeper than those which could be inscribed with a glass cutting tool.

We are concerned with this problem because the integrity of the glass may be affected and in some cases the etching is in a position that vision is obstructed.

I have enclosed three pictures of vehicles equipped with etched window glass. In each of these cases, the etching is in a position which will interfere with driver visibility. Therefore, the glazing would be rejected during annual inspection and the hazard eliminated.

Etching which is placed on glazing in areas not used for drivers visibility cannot be rejected for the same reason. Although there is a strong likelihood that the glass has been weakened, we are not sure how to handle such cases.

Your advice on this matter would be appreciated. If you need additional information, please advise. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Donald H. Giberson Assistant Director

DHG:WH:rc

Enclosures

cc: Edward Jettner, NHTSA Edward Gyarfas, NJ DMV

ID: nht87-1.66

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/19/87

FROM: Erika Z. Jones -- NHTSA

TO: Jim Bates -- U.S. House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

The Honorable Jim Bates United States House of Representatives 430 Davidson Street Suite A Chula Vista, CA 92010 Dear Mr. Bates:

This responds to your letter on behalf of a constituent, Tatar Osman. Mr. Osman was interested in learning how to get an "approval" for a child seat. According to advertising literature you enclosed with your letter, this child seat complies with the Eur opean ECE Regulation 44. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations.

In enforcing its safety standards, this agency does not follow the European practice of requiring the manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment to deliver an item of the equipment to specified institutes for testing before the product can be sold. Instead, as required by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the manufacturer itself must certify that each of its items of motor vehicle equipment fully satisfies all requirements of the Applicable Federal motor vehicle standards. In the case of c hild seats, every child restraint system for use in motor vehicles that is sold in or imported into the United States must be certified as complying with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR S571.213 (copy enclos ed). This standard sets forth both performance and labelling requirements that must be satisfied by the child restraint system.

Further, this agency does not require that the manufacturer's certification be based on a specified number of tests of the child restraint system or any tests at all. Pursuant to the Vehicle Safety Act, we only require that the certification be made with the exercise of due care on the part of the manufacturer. It is up to the individual manufacturer in the first instance to determine what data, test results, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that its child restraint system complies with Standard No. 213. We would certainly recommend, however, that a manufacturer selling its child restraint systems in the United States for the first time test those systems according to the test procedures specified in Standard No. 213. Once the manu facturer has determined that its child restraint system complies with the requirements of Standard No. 213, it certifies that compliance by placing a certification label on the child restraint, as specified in section S5.5 of Standard No. 213.

There are two additional regulations you should bring to the attention of your constituent in the even he plans to import these child restraints into the United States. Copies of both these regulations are enclosed for your information. The first is 49 C FR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. This regulation requires a manufacturer (including importer) of motor vehicle equipment to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the equipment it manufactures (or imports) to this agency within 30 days of the date the child restraints are first manufactured (Imported into the United States).

The second regulation in 49 CFR Part 551, Procedural Rules. Section 551.45 requires the actual manufacturer of foreign-manufactured child restraints to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of proce ss in this country. It is not necessary for an importer located within this country to designate its own agent as well. Part 551 specifies that the designation of agent by the manufacturer must contain the following six items of information:

1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding upon 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, tradenames, or other designations of origin of any of the manufacturer's child restraint systems that 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 by the manufacturer, and that agent may be an individual, firm, or U.S. corporation; and

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

Such a designation must be received by this agency before any of the manufacturer's child restraint systems are imported into this country.

Should you need further information on this subject, or a clarification of any of the information set forth herein, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel cc: Washington Office

March 4, 1987

Edward P. Harrill Congressional Relations Consumer Product Safety Commission 5401 Westbard Ave. Bethesda, MD 20207

Dear Mr. Harrill:

I was recently contacted by a constituent, Tatar Osman, regarding an approval for a babyseat, advertising attached.

I would greatly appreciate your looking into this matter and providing me with a reply so that I might properly respond to the inquiry. If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact Marie Scharfenberg of m y district office at 691-1166.

Thank you for your assistance. Please respond to me at 430 Davidson St., Suite A, Chula Vista, CA 92010.

Sincerely, J.M. BATES Member of Congress Attachment (SEE HARD COPY FOR GRAPHIC PICTURES)

ID: nht87-1.83

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/03/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Sadako Vargas

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Sadako Vargas, MA, OTR Children's Specialized Hospital New Providence Road Mountainside, NJ 07091

Dear Ms. Vargas:

Thank you for your recent letter to Steve Kratzke of my staff, requesting approval to adapt a car seat for use by patients that are Siamese twins. You explained that these patients are connected at the waist, and have two trunks, two sets of arms, and on e pair of legs. You would like to modify an existing car seat by adding another harness and perhaps adding extra foam cushions to support their heads and offer added comfort. hope the following explanation of our statute and regulatory requirements will be helpful to you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that establish performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. We have used this authority to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR S571.213. Manufacturers of child restraint systems must certify that each new child restraint they produce conforms to Standard No. 213 before th e child restraint is offered for sale.

However, the Safety Act provide; that child restraint systems are only required to comply with Standard No. 213 until "after the first purchase of it in good faith for purposes other than resale;" 15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1). When your hospital purchases child restraint systems, that is the first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. Once your hospital has made such a purchase, the Safety Act does not require that the child restraint system continue to conform with Standard No. 213.

The only restriction the Safety Act imposes on child restraint systems after the first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale is that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business can "render inoperative" any devic e or element of design installed on or in the child restraint system in compliance with Standard No. 213; 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A). Note that there is no statutory prohibition against the owner of the child restraint system rendering inoperative a device or element of design installed on the child restraint in compliance with Standard No. 213. We conclude that a hospital modifying child restraints for use by physically handicapped children is not a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repa ir business. This conclusion means there is no statutory restriction on the type or modifications your hospital can make to child restraints it has acquired. Accordingly, the hospital does not need any approval from this agency to modify child restraint systems to accommodate the particular needs of physically handicapped children.

You also asked for our advice as to what kind of car seat your hospital can provide these siamese twins when they outgrow the commercially available car seat you are proposing to modify for them. I doubt that there are commercially available child restra int systems that, without modification, can accommodate the Siamese twins. If you are asking which child restraint you should select for modification or are seeking advice on how to best perform any modifications, I recommend that you contact Ms. Kathlee n Weber, who is associated with the Transportation Research Institute of the University of Michigan. She has experience in testing child restraints designed specifically for use by physically handicapped children and could provide you with information ab out such testing. Her telephone number is (313) 764-4722.

I hope this information is helpful for you. If you have any further questions on this topic, please feel free to contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Mr. Steve Kratzki Advisor to Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street S.W. - Room 5219 Washington, D. C. 20590 April 6, 1987

Dear Mr. Kratzki:

This is to request approval for the use of an adapted car seat for particular patients, in regard to the phone conversation you had with Dr. Elena Zarafu, Medical Director of Children's Specialized Hospital.

The patients in question are siamese twins, 2, months old at the present time. They are connected from the waist up, have two separate trucks, two sets of arms, and one pair of legs. Their approximate weight is 6.6. lbs. and the height is presently. 45 i nches.

We are considering adapting a Britan care seat. The upper parts of the existing harness passes over the inner shoulders of both twins. The lower part of the existing harness secures the twins' hips. An extra harness will be attached across the chests of both the harness. The harness will be about 2 inches wide, padded with soft foam, and wrapped around the back of the car seat (secured to the back of the car seat with velcro). Extra foam cushions or pillows may be necessary to support their heads and ad d comfort.

The twins, at present, fit in the Britan car seat together. However, there is no other car seat large enough to accommodate them when they grow more. I would appreciate your advice as to what kind of the seat we can provide them when they no longer fit i n the commercially available care seat.

Thank you very much. Sadako Vargas, MA, OTR SV/bp