ID: nht74-2.12

DATE: 11/14/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your October 23, 1974, question in behalf of Steadman Containers, Ltd., asking if Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, applies to the Steadman "liftainer", which is described as a semi-trailer frame capable of carrying 20- and 40-foot cargo containers that are loaded by means of cranes mounted at each end of the semi-trailer. The vehicle is used to move containers in terminal areas and is used on the highway only in relocation to another terminal.

The "liftainer" is a motor vehicle as that term is defined in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, because it uses the highway on a necessary and recurring basis to move between work sites. A discussion of the motor vehicle definition is enclosed for your information. As a motor vehicle, it is subject to the requirements of Standard No. 121 for trailers, effective January 1, 1975.

I have also enclosed a discussion of Standard No. 121's applicability to vehicles purchased by Canadians for use between Canadian and United States points. The standard would apply to Steadman trailers if they are purchased for use on U.S. highways.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

October 23, 1974

James B. Gregory -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation

Dear Dr. Gregory:

Could you please furnish us with an interpretation in connection with the enclosed described equipment and its relationship with the anti-skid devices to be placed on equipment by January 1, 1975?

You will note that Steadman containers indicates that "The Liftainer Container handling unit is not intended, nor used, as a highway unit, but is used in terminals where it is moved by means of a conventional highway tractor. Its highway use is limited only to possible occasional re-positioning from one yard to another. As its width in the closed, unfolded condition, is in excess of 8', road movement always involves use of special permits."

We will appreciate your consideration and response to the above.

Sincerely yours, Charles J. Calvin -- President

ID: nht93-2.5

DATE: March 3, 1993

FROM: Matthew J. Ryan -- Director, Commercial Vehicle Safety Bureau, State of New York, Department of Transportation

TO: Charles R. Hott -- Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-19-93 from John Womack to Matthew J. Ryan (A41; Std. 222)

TEXT: This letter is a follow-up to your telephone conversation today with Jim Brunet regarding interpretation of the recent changes (Federal Register 1/15/93) to Title 49 Part 571.222.

From your conversation, we feel the following statements are correct:

1. If a school bus is built or modified to accommodate one or more wheelchairs, after January 17, 1994, the restraint/securement system required by the regulation change, must be complied with.

2. A school bus built with no wheelchair seating positions, is not required to have a wheelchair position.

We request that you please confirm in writing that the above statements are accurate.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter and please feel free to contact us on (518) 457-3406, if you have any questions.

ID: 86-3.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/24/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. T. Chikada

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

March 24, 1986 Mr. T. Chikada Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept. Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan Dear Mr. Chikada: This is in reply to your letter of January 9, 1986, telling of your development of a center high-mounted stop lamp which would utilize light-emitting diodes (LEDs) as a light source, rather than a light source incorporating a tungsten filament. You have asked whether such a device would be permissible under Standard No. 108. In support of your argument that such a light-producing device would be acceptable, you have brought to our attention paragraph S4.1.1.19 which allows a lamp manufacturer to use "bulbs" that are not listed in SAE Information Report J387 Jul83 is appropriate. The SAE defines a "bulb" as "an indivisible assembly which contains a source of light and which is normally used in a lamp." In further support of your position, you have submitted a summary of test results indication that your LED stop lamp meets all applicable requirements of Standard No. 108, except for S4.1.1.41(e). That subparagraph requires the lamp to "provide access for convenient replacement of the bulb without the use of special tools." We have reviewed your request, and have the following comments. As you have pointed out, Standard No. 108 does not define a "bulb," but we interpret that word in a manner similar to the SAE, that it refers to a photometric performance requirements of Standard No. 108, and you have indicated that your LD4ED lamp complies with these requirements. However, your LED lamp must also meet the requirements of S4.1.1.41(e). Access must be provided for convenient replacement, without use of special tools, of either the individual clusters of LEDs which burn out or the entire lamp. If your lamp is designed so that it meets S4.1.1.41(e) in one of these two ways, then your lamp would appear to be acceptable under Standard No. 108. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2616

Dear Mr. McNeil: This is in response to your letter of June 10, 1977, concerning vehicle manufacturer's responsibilities with regard to overloading.; You make a reference to a November 10, 1976, letter from the Nationa Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) which stated that manufacturers must take reasonable steps to ensure that the vehicles they produce will not be overloaded by their users. Although we acknowledge that a manufacturer does not have direct control over the actual use of its vehicles, it does exercise indirect control over use through the vehicle's design.; The NHTSA has stated in the past that a vehicle's gross vehicle weigh rating (GVWR) is determined by the sum of its unloaded vehicle weight, 150 pounds for each designated seating position, and its rated cargo load. It is the cargo load rating that is most relevant to the problem of overloading. The rated cargo load should represent the manufacturer's assessment of the vehicle's cargo-carrying capacity and the maximum load at which the vehicle may be safely operated. A manufacturer must consider the maximum load capacity of the vehicle when it designs its cargo-carrying portion. If this is not done, the rated cargo load, and thus the GVWR, may be meaningless since the vehicle may have a cargo-carrying chamber which, if filled, would cause the vehicle to exceed its stated weight ratings. An illustration of such a situation would be a tanker truck which exceeds its GVWR when the tank is filled with a type of material appropriate for carrying in that cargo area. If the manufacturer could reasonably have anticipated that such cargo would be carried in the tanker, yet rated the vehicle with a GVWR which was less than the vehicle's weight when fully loaded with that cargo, a safety-related defect for which the manufacturer is responsible may be considered to exist.; The NHTSA does not expect manufacturers to be omniscient when it come to the use of the vehicles they produce. It does, however, expect the stated weight ratings to reflect the design of the vehicles and the uses to which they can reasonably be anticipated to be put. Where the manufacturer has reason to know the specific commodity intended to be carried in its vehicles and those vehicles have a totally enclosed cargo area, as with a tanker, the rated cargo load is relatively easy to determine.; In your particular case, your responsibility for any subsequen overloading of the vehicles it manufactures would be determined by the reasonableness of your GVWR's and gross axle weight ratings (GAWR), given the size and configuration of your vehicles and the types of loads which they could reasonably be expected to carry. In the case of flat beds (no enclosed cargo area) a manufacturer would obviously not be able to provide weight ratings sufficiently high to prevent overloading in all instances. The design of flat beds necessarily permits overloading since the cargo area is unrestricted. Thus if the weight ratings specified appear to have been arrived at by a good faith determination based upon the types of loads the manufacturer anticipates will be carried, its responsibility with regard to weight rating specifications will have been satisfied and no safety-related defect will be attributable to it.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2615

Dear Mr. Anderson: This is in response to your letter of May 6, 1977, concerning a vehicl manufacturer's responsibilities with regard to overloading.; You make reference to several recent interpretations from the Nationa Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) which stated that manufacturers must take reasonable steps to ensure that the vehicles they produce will not be overloaded by their users. Although we acknowledge that a manufacturer does not have direct control over the actual use of its vehicles, it does exercise indirect control over use through the vehicle's design.; The NHTSA has stated in the past that a vehicle's gross vehicle weigh rating (GVWR) is determined by the sum of its unloaded vehicle weight, 150 pounds for each designated seating position, and its rated cargo load. It is the cargo load rating that is most relevant to the problem of overloading. The rated cargo load should represent the manufacturer's assessment of the vehicle's cargo-carrying capacity and the maximum load at which the vehicle may be safely operated. A manufacturer must consider the maximum load capacity of the vehicle when it designs its cargo-carrying portion. If this is not done, the rated cargo load, and thus the GVWR, may be meaningless since the vehicle may have a cargo-carrying chamber which, if filled, would cause the vehicle to exceed its stated weight ratings.; An illustration of such a situation would be a tanker truck whic exceeds its GVWR when the tank is filled with a type of material appropriate for carrying in that cargo area. If the manufacturer could reasonably have anticipated that such cargo would be carried in the tanker, yet rated the vehicle with a GVWR which was less than the vehicle's weight when fully loaded with that cargo, a safety-related defect for which the manufacturer is responsible may be considered to exist.; The NHTSA does not expect manufacturers to be omniscient when it come to the use of the vehicles they produce. It does, however, expect the stated weight ratings to reflect the design of the vehicles and the uses to which they can reasonably be anticipated to be put. Where the manufacturer has reason to know the specific commodity intended to be carried in its vehicles and those vehicles have a totally enclosed cargo area, as with a tanker, the rated cargo load is relatively easy to determine.; A manufacturer's responsibility for any subsequent overloading of th vehicles it manufactures would be determined by the reasonableness of its GVWR's and gross axle weight ratings (GAWR), given the size and configuration of its vehicles and the types of loads which they could reasonably be expected to carry. In the case of flat beds (no enclosed cargo area) a manufacturer would obviously not be able to provide weight ratings sufficiently high to prevent overloading in all instances. The design of flat beds necessarily permits overloading since the cargo area is unrestricted. Thus if the weight ratings specified appear to have been arrived at by a good faith determination based upon the types of loads the manufacturer anticipates will be carried, its responsibility with regard to weight rating specifications will have been satisfied and no safety-related defect will be attributable to it.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2617

Dear Mr. Storz: This is in response to your letter of May 5, 1977, concerning a vehicl manufacturer's responsibilities with regard to overloading.; You make a reference to a November 10, 1976, letter from the Nationa Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) which stated that manufacturers must take reasonable steps to ensure that the vehicles they produce will not be overloaded by their users. Although we acknowledge that a manufacturer does not have direct control over the actual use of its vehicles, it does exercise indirect control over use through the vehicle's design.; The NHTSA has stated in the past that a vehicle's gross vehicle weigh rating (GVWR) is determined by the sum of its unloaded vehicle weight, 150 pounds for each designated seating position, and its rated cargo load. It is the cargo load rating that is most relevant to the problem of overloading. The rated cargo load should represent the manufacturer's assessment of the vehicle's cargo-carrying capacity and the maximum load at which the vehicle may be safely operated. A manufacturer must consider the maximum load capacity of the vehicle when it designs its cargo-carrying portion. If this is not done, the rated cargo load, and thus the GVWR, may be meaningless since the vehicle may have a cargo-carrying chamber which, if filled, would cause the vehicle to exceed its stated weight ratings. An illustration of such a situation would be a tanker truck which exceeds its GVWR when the tank is filled with a type of material appropriate for carrying in that cargo area. If the manufacturer could reasonably have anticipated that such cargo would be carried in the tanker, yet rated the vehicle with a GVWR which was less than the vehicle's weight when fully loaded with that cargo, a safety-related defect for which the manufacturer is responsible may be considered to exist.; The NHTSA does not expect manufacturers to be omniscient when it come to the use of the vehicles they produce. It does, however, expect the stated weight ratings to reflect the design of the vehicles and the uses to which they can reasonably be anticipated to be put. Where the manufacturer has reason to know the specific commodity intended to be carried in its vehicles and those vehicles have a totally enclosed cargo area, as with a tanker, the rated cargo load is relatively easy to determine.; In your particular case, your responsibility for any subsequen overloading of the vehicles it manufactures would be determined by the reasonableness of your GVWR's and gross axle weight ratings (GAWR), given the size and configuration of your vehicles and the types of loads which they could reasonably be expected to carry. Since some of your vehicles are flat beds (no enclosed cargo area) you would obviously not be able to provide weight ratings sufficiently high to prevent overloading in all instances. The design of flat beds necessarily permits overloading since the cargo area is unrestricted. Thus if the weight ratings you specify appear to have been arrived at by a good faith determination based upon the types of loads you anticipate will be carried, your responsibility with regard to weight rating specifications will have been satisfied and no safety-related defect will be attributable to you.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: GF008677

Mr. Bryce Pfister
Director of Operations
Collins Bus Corporation
P.O. Box 2946
Hutchinson, KS 67504-2946




Dear Mr. Pfister:

This is in response to your letter and subsequent e-mail regarding the placement of a tire safety information placard required by Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 110 "Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less."Specifically, you ask if FMVSS No. 110 permits attaching the placard to the panel located above the drivers door in a raised roof vehicle, when the placard does not fit in the other locations specified in S4.3.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues FMVSSs applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. However, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements.

S4.3  of FMVSS No. 110 reads, in relevant part, as follows:

"S4.3  Placard. Each vehicle, shall show the information specified in on a placard permanently affixed to the driver's side B-pillar. In each vehicle without a driver's side B-pillar and with two doors on the driver's side of the vehicle opening in opposite directions, the placard shall be affixed on the forward edge of the rear side door. If the above locations do not permit the affixing of a placard that is legible, visible and prominent, the placard shall be permanently affixed to the rear edge of the driver's side door. If this location does not permit the affixing of a placard that is legible, visible and prominent, the placard shall be affixed to the inward facing surface of the vehicle next to the driver's seating position" (emphasis added)

The photographs attached to your e-mail show a tire safety information placard that is considerably larger than the one contemplated by the agency, and used as an example in Figure 1 of the regulatory text.We note however, that a larger placard is not prohibited by FMVSS No. 110 because the Standard does not specify a particular size or a dimension for the placard. We also note that your placard would not be legible if affixed to the B-pillar, or to the rear edge of the drivers side door because it would have to bend along the edges of the door or the B-pillar.We conclude that locating the tire safety information placard on the panel above the drivers side door satisfies the requirement that the placard be affixed to the inward facing surface of the vehicle next to the drivers sitting position.In this location, the placard is clearly legible, visible and prominent.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, you may contact Mr. George Feygin of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:110
d.4/7/06

ID: 14019pad.sun

Mr. Jeff Greger
Graco Children's Products Inc.
51 S. Pine St.
P.O. Box 100
Elverson, PA 19520

Dear Mr. Greger:

This responds to your January 30, 1997, letter concerning the head impact protection requirements of Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems," as applied to a "canopy (sun visor)" on an infant restraint. You ask:

If a canopy, when folded into the "storage position," extends above the seatback surface, is it necessary for that canopy to "break away" in the event that the child's head or body strikes it during a collision? I am aware that this canopy would be required to be padded with a slow recovery energy absorbing material since protruding above the seatback would deem it a "contactable surface."

The canopy is not required to break away if struck by the dummy's head or body. If the canopy can be contacted by the dummy's head during Standard No. 213's dynamic testing, S5.2.3.2 of the standard requires it to be covered with slow recovery, energy absorbing materials with specified characteristics.

If you have any further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:213
d:3/19/97

ID: 86-3.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/12/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Leon E. Panetta

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

May 12, 986 The Honorable Leon E. Panetta Member, United States House of Representatives 380 Alvarado Street Monterey, California 93940 Dear Mr. Panetta: Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. John Cormick of San Luis Obispo, California, regarding Federal regulations for wheelchairs on school buses. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply, since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers Federal laws applying to school buses. Your constituent requested information about two sets of Federal regulation relating to school bus drivers. He first asked about any regulations issued by the Department of Justice for fingerprint checks of school bus drivers. I understand that those questions have been referred to the Justice Department for reply. His second set of concerns, which you asked us to review, pertain to regulations issued by California that permit temporary placement of wheelchairs in the aisle of school buses during operation of the vehicles. Mr. Cormick believes this is unsafe since a wheelchair might impede access from the school bus in the event of an accident and asks what effect Federal law might have on State adoption of such a regulation. As explained below, Federal law does not prohibit States from issuing a regulation for the temporary placing of wheelchairs in school bus aisles. While NHTSA has issued a number of recommendations to the States for operational requirements for school buses, States establish regulations for school bus use, such as the one described by your constituent. Mr. Cormick is thus correct in contacting State officials to express his concerns and suggestions. Since your constituent asks how Federal school bus regulations affect regulations issued by the States, I would like to begin with some background information on our school bus regulations. This agency administers two sets of regulations for school buses. The first set, issued under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, applies to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and includes NHTSA's motor vehicle safety standards for new school buses. Those school bus safety standards set performance standards for various aspects of school bus safety, such as windows and windshields, fuel systems, emergency exits and seating systems. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, manufacturers of new buses must certify that their buses comply with our school bus safety standards if the vehicles are intended for carrying school children, and sellers of new school buses must ensure that complying school buses are only sold. The requirements of the Vehicle Safety Act and our school bus safety standards are Federal requirements which apply directly to school bus manufacturers and sellers and are thus not dependent on State adoption. On the other hand, the second set of regulations we have for school buses is contingent on State implementation. This set, issued under the Highway Safety Act of 1966, applies to Federal funding of State highway safety programs. Each State submits a highway safety program which is reviewed and approved by NHTSA each year. Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety (copy enclosed), contains guidelines for various aspects of pupil transportation programs including school vehicle identification, maintenance, and driver qualifications. One of its recommendations is that school bus drivers meet all special physical, mental and moral requirements established by the State agency having responsibility for pupil transportation. Since States set the procedures for selecting school bus drivers, State officials would be able to provide Mr. Cormick with more information about California's policies governing school bus driver selection and examination. Because we regulate the manufacture and sale of new school buses and not their use, we would have no authority to prohibit school bus users from placing wheelchairs in aisles of school buses. Further, no recommendations for accommodating wheelchairs in school buses have been made in Program Standard No. 17. However, we are concerned about practices that might affect the safety provided by school buses (such as impeding access to school bus exits) and we encourage States to ensure that school children are transported in the safest possible manner. Mr. Cormick's school district might want to consider using school buses that have seating positions specially modified to accommodate students in wheelchairs. Those vehicles have wheelchair positions to which wheelchairs can be firmly secured, which provides safer accommodations to all occupants of the school bus. Please contact me if you or your constituent have any further questions. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure cc: Washington Office

ID: 23607.drn

Sean A. Cox, Manager
Xpress Rent-a-Car
2021 E. Platte Avenue
Colorado Springs, CO 80909





Dear Mr. Cox:

This responds to your September 6, 2001, letter requesting information about a "Federal law pertaining to the transportation of school age children." As explained below, Federal law restricts the types of new buses that you as a dealer, may lease or rent for school transportation purposes. However, it does not specify how school age children must be transported. Your state law (Colorado) regulates how school age children are to be transported.

The questions you raise have been addressed for the most part in the enclosed interpretation letter of May 9, 2001, to Collins Bus Corporation. In that letter, we explain dealers' responsibilities in selling new buses to day care centers that will be using the vehicles to transport children to or from schools.

The letter to Collins discusses prohibitions on sales of new buses that do not meet the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) school bus standards. In addition, a dealer renting or leasing a new bus that will be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events must be sure to rent or lease a new bus that is certified as meeting NHTSA's school bus standards. You ask whether a child care provider could lease or rent a vehicle on a short term basis to replace one of their existing vehicles that may be unavailable due to mechanical reasons. In our opinion, generally a short term lease or rental in this circumstance would be permitted, to meet this atypical situation. A lease or rental of a new nonconforming bus for regular transportation would not be permitted, however, since that bus would be used significantly to transport students.

We are not authorized to regulate the lease or rental of used buses to transport students. If the buses in your fleet were not new, Federal law does not regulate their lease or rental as vehicles used to transport school children.

Before you make decisions about leasing or renting used vehicles to day care centers, however, please consider our letter to Collins Bus. As explained in that letter, on June 8, 1999, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) issued a special investigative report on nonconforming buses (copy of abstract attached). 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 defined "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 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.

It is our opinion, and that of the NTSB, that school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country. 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, NHTSA notes that using 15-person vans that do not meet NHTSA's school bus standards to transport students could result in liability in the event of a crash.

For your information, I am 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 15-person vans. Please be advised that there are small school buses (under 10,000 pound gross vehicle weight rating) available that seat 15 or fewer children. Because it would not be cost effective to do so, we do not recommend retrofitting 15-person vans to meet school bus standards. I am also enclosing NHTSA's February 1999 "Guideline for the Safe Transportation of Pre-school Age Children in School Buses." This guideline establishes NHTSA's recommendations for how pre-school age children should be transported in school buses.

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

Enclosures
ref:VSA#571.3
d.11/16/01