ID: nht90-4.88

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 18, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Mary Rees -- D.C. (USA) Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-9-90 to NHTSA from Mary Rees (OCC 5362; FMVSS 207)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of October 9, 1990. In your letter you ask the following questions concerning testing and certification.

(1) If a manufacturer has developed an item that he feels does meet all federal safety regulations, and it is ready to be tested, how would he get it tested? Are there any forms to be filed?

First, please be aware that the United States does not have an approval process. In the United States, a manufacturer of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment must certify that its products will comply with all applicable safety standards. Each of this agency's safety standards specifies the test conditions and procedures that this agency will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard. The National Highway Traffic S afety Administration (NHTSA) precisely follows each of the specified test procedures and conditions when conducting its compliance testing. However, the Safety Act does not require a manufacturer to test its products only in the manner specified in the relevant safety standard, or even to test the products at all. A manufacturer may choose any means of evaluating its products to determine whether the vehicle or item of equipment complies with the requirements of the safety standards, provided, however , that the manufacturer assures that the vehicle or equipment will comply with the safety standards when tested by the agency according to the procedures specified in the standard. The requirements concerning certification may be found at 49 CFR Part 56 7.

If the agency testing shows an apparent noncompliance exists with a vehicle or item of equipment, the manufacturer is asked to show the basis for its certification that the vehicle or equipment complies with the relevant safety standard or standards. If in fact there is a noncompliance, the manufacturer is subject to civil penalties under the Safety Act unless it can establish that it exercised "due care" in the design and manufacture of the product and in the evaluation (through actual testing, comput er simulation, engineering analyses, or other means) to ensure compliance, but nevertheless did not have reason to know that the vehicle or item of equipment did not in fact comply with the safety standards. While an element of "due care" could be the u se of appropriate testing laboratories, there is no explicit requirement that testing laboratories meet specific standards. In addition, NHTSA does not approve independent testing facilities, nor will it recommend any particular testing center be utiliz ed.

Finally, manufacturers are not required to file any forms beyond the requirements of 49 CFR Part 566. This regulation requires a

manufacturer to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment it manufactures, there is no requirement to submit test data or any other forms to support certification. However, manufacturers would be well advised to retain such data as evidence of their due care in certifying compliance with the safety standards.

(2) We propose to manufacture an automobile seat frame. Since this is only a component of the actual seat, does the firm who puts together the finished seat apply for approval and testing?

As explained previously, neither you nor the firm who puts together the finished seat has to apply for approval and testing. However, your question indicates some confusion regarding the party who is responsible for certifying that the seat complies wit h federal standards. The answer will vary depending upon the situation in which the seat is installed in a vehicle.

Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, is considered a vehicle standard, because it applies only to new vehicles. Therefore, if a seat which incorporates your seat frame is installed in a vehicle during manufacture, the vehicle manufacturer is responsible f or certifying that the completed vehicle complies with all applicable standards, including Standard No. 207. If the seat is added to a new, previously certified, motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alte rer. An alterer is required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration.

Finally, if the seat is sold as aftermarket equipment to be installed in a used motor vehicle, the seat, as a piece of equipment, does not have to comply with any federal standards. However, S108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act provides, in pertinent part:

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

Therefore, none of these entities could install a seat containing your seat frame if it caused the vehicle to no longer comply with standard No. 207 or any other standard.

In all of these situations, you, as the manufacturer of the seat frame, have no certification requirements. However, the manufacturer of the seat or the vehicle it is to be installed in will probably require information from you in order to make the nec essary certification.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht88-2.61

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/30/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: TERRY K. BROCK -- NATIONAL SALES MANAGER COONS MANUFACTURING INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 09/09/87 FROM TERRY K BROCK TO STEVE KRATZKE RE CLARIFICATION OF FMVSS CODE 217; OCC 1009; LETTER DATED 08/20/87 FROM TERRY K BROCK TO SABASTIAN MESSINA; LETTER DATED 08/28/87 FROM ST MESSINA TO TERRY K BROCK RE COONS MANUFACTURING INC DIAMOND VIP BUS 25 PASSENGERS MC 157-87

TEXT: Dear Mr. Brock:

This is a response to your letter of last year seeking an interpretation of Standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release (49 CFR @ 571.217). I apologize for the delay in this response. Specifically, you asked whether the front entrance door of a bus may be considered as an emergency exit under Standard 217. You stated that some of your company's buses have the front entrance door labeled as an emergency exit, and equipped with the emergency release mechanism required by Standard 217. You enclosed an August 28, 1987 letter from the New Jersey Department of Transportation referencing Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations that "require . . . emergency exits (to) comply with" Standard 217. The letter from New Jersey states that a "front entrance d oor cannot be considered (as an emergency exit) since the intent of the regulations is to provide emergency escape through push out windows and roof escape hatches."

You asked whether we interpret Standard 217 as precluding front entrance doors from also serving as emergency exits. The answer to your question is no. As long as the front door meets all applicable requirements for emergency exits under Standard 217, the door can be considered as an emergency exit. Contrary to the opinion stated in the New Jersey letter, it never has been this agency's position that only push-out window and roof exits may be used to satisfy Standard 217 requirements. (See 37 FR 939 4, 9395, May 10, 1972; copy enclosed.)

The question of whether a front entrance door may be a required emergency exit under Standard 217 depends upon (1) the vehicle's gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR); and (2) whether the vehicle is a school bus, or a bus other than a school bus. I will ad dress each of the possibilities separately.

Bus Other Than a School Bus, and With a GVWR of More Than 10,000 Lbs.

A front entrance door can serve as a required emergency exit under Standard 217 in a bus that is not a school bus, and that has a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds. For such buses, paragraphs S5.2.1 and S5.2.1.1 of Standard 217 generally require the bus t o have "side exits and at least one rear exit," or "one side door for each three passenger seating positions." If the bus configuration precludes installing an accessible rear exit, then a manufacturer may install a roof exit under the conditions set out in S5.2.1.

Bus Other Than a School Bus, and With a GVWR of 10,000 Lbs. or Less

A front entrance door can also serve as a required emergency exit for buses other than school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. For these buses, the vehicle must have windows or other emergency exits that meet the requirements set out in parag raphs S5.2.2, or S5.3 through 5.5 of the Standard. If the vehicle's emergency exits are standard, roll-down windows, or the vehicle's entrance and exit doors, then these exits must meet the specifications of S5.2.2(b). Under that provision, the windows and doors must be manually operable, and must open to a position that provides a specified area for getting out. Note that under S5.5.1, these exits do not have to meet Standard 217 marking requirements. The agency has determined that people who are ol d enough to read instructions generally are familiar with the operation of standard, roll-down windows and doors, and that there is little justification for requiring emergency exit markings for these exits. (40 FR 17266, April 18, 1975.)

If the vehicle's emergency exits are push-out windows or some other emergency exit, then the vehicle must comply with paragraphs S5.3 through S5.5. A manufacturer must label these exits under S5.5 because they are specially-installed emergency exits who se means of operation may not be obvious to the passengers.

School Buses

A front entrance door can not serve as a required emergency exit in a school bus, regardless of the vehicle's weight. Paragraph S5.2.3 of Standard 217 requires all school buses to have either (1) one rear emergency door, or (2) "one emergency door on th e vehicle's left side that is in the rear half of the bus passenger compartment and is hinged on its forward side, and one push-out window." A manufacturer who chooses to meet school bus emergency exit requirements under the second option could not use t he front entrance door as a required emergency exit under Standard 217, since that door would not be in the rear half of the passenger compartment. However, if a manufacturer chose to install an "additional" emergency exit such as a front entrance door, NHTSA regulations would not prohibit installing this exit. As the agency long has held, any "extra" emergency exit installed in a school bus must comply with Standard 217 provisions applicable to emergency exits in buses other than school buses.

Please understand that this letter addresses only Standard 217, and does not address or interpret any Federal Motor Carrier regulations. If you have any questions about those regulations, you should contact the Federal Highway Administration.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Joan F. Tilghman of my staff, at (202) 366-2992.

ENCLOSURE

ID: 1982-1.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/26/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Malcolm J. McCalmon -- International Sales Manager, CENTRA Leichtmetall - Rader GmbH

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff concerning the Federal requirements for vehicle wheels that are to be imported into the United States. You noted in your letter that the wheels would be for "original equipment on passenger vehicles and non-passenger vehicles (recreation vehicles)." There are two Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards which apply to wheel rims. There are no standards applicable to the rest of the wheel assembly, however.

The two applicable standards are No. 110, Tire selection and rims - passenger cars, and No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars. I have enclosed copies of both standards, along with Standards Nos. 109 and No. 119, which are applicable to tires. For those passenger car rims you manufacture there are two requirements, specified in section S4.4 of Standard No. 110. First, the rim must be constructed to the dimensions of one of the rims that is listed under the definition of a test rim in Standard No. 109. This means that the rim must comply with the dimensional specifications shown for that rim size in the current publications of specified standardization organizations, such as the Tire & Rim Association, the European Tyre and Rim Technical Organization, or the Deutsches Institut fur Normung. Second, in the event of a rapid loss of inflation pressure with the vehicle travelling in a straight line at 60 miles per hour, the rim must retain the deflated tire until the vehicle can be stopped with a controlled braking application.

For those rims you manufacture for use on vehicles other than passenger cars, Standard No. 120 also specifies two requirements. The first requirement, set forth in section S5.1.1, is that the rims on a vehicle must correspond with the size tire on the vehicle, i.e., be listed as suitable by the tire manufacturer, pursuant to either Standard No. 109 or No. 119. This would be done in the publications of the standardization organizations, as explainted above. This requirement is the responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer, since only it knows what size tires will actually be on the vehicle. The second requirement, set forth in section S5.2, is that the rim must be marked with certain specified information.

When a rim manufacturer determines that its rims comply with the requirements outlined above, it may certify the rims and sell them in the United States. In your letter, you inaccurately stated that there is no a specific DOT certification for rims. While there is no specific DOT certification number, as required by some other standards for items of equipment other than rims, a manufacturer must always certify that each item of motor vehicle equipment complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, pursuant to section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1403) (copy enclosed). That section specifies that the certification for items of motor vehicle safety equipment, including rims, may be in the form of a label or tag on the item, or on the outside of a container in which the item is delivered. All of your rims to be sold in this country must contain such a certification.

The United States does not use a certification process similar to the EEC, in which the manufacturer delivers the item to be certified to the governmental entity, and that entity tests the item to determine if it can be certified. Instead, in the United States, the individual manufacturer must certify that the product complies with all applicable standards. Further, this agency does not require that a certification be based on actual tests of the equipment; 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 to determine in the first instance exactly what data or information it needs to allow it to certify that the equipment meets all applicable Federal standards. Obviously, with respect to the requirements for rims, a manufacturer is not expected to test if the rims have the necessary markings or if the rim size is listed in one of the publications of a standardization organization.

Should you have any further questions about these standards, feel free to contact me. If you need further information about the actual process of importing the rims into the United States or the form for the certification, you can contact the U.S. Customs Service Duty Assessment Division at 1301 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20229.

SINCERELY,

ATTACH.

STEVEN KRATZKE -- Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Safety Adm

JANUARY 25, 1982

Dear Mr. Kratzke,

We are a wheel manufacturing corporation in West Germany and we wish to insure that our wheels also comply with the U.S. D.O.T. requirements, specifically for original equipment on passenger vehicles and non-passenger vehicles (recreation vehicles).

In a phone conversation with Mr. Art Casanova from the N.H.S.A. I found out that there is not a specific D.O.T. certification, there is only a specific marking requirement, as written in Article No. 571-120. Mr. Casanova stated that as long as we marked our wheels as required, we comply with D.O.T. standards, he suggested that I write to you to get an official letter stating the same.

If there are more rigid requirements please let me know exactly what is required and send me instructions on how to accomplish what ever needs to be done.

Thanking you in advance I remain

Sincerely Yours,

Malcolm J. Mc Calmon -- Intern Sales Manager, CENTRA GMBH

ID: 1983-1.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/07/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Eldon Rudd; House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear Mr. Rudd:

This responds to your recent letter on behalf of your constituent, Mrs. Jan Wilson, asking whether Federal law restricts motorists from having darkly tinted films installed on the window of their automobiles.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has authority to govern the manufacture of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. We have promulgated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance. Seventy percent transmittance is required in all areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes the windshield and all windows in passenger cars. This specification for light transmittance precludes darkly-tinted windows in new automobiles.

The agency has stated in past interpretations that solar films are not glazing materials themselves, and would not have to comply with Standard No. 205. However, use of such films on motor vehicles in certain cases would be prohibited if the vehicle glazing no longer complied with the light transmittance requirements of the standard (most of these films do reduce light transmittance below 70%). If a vehicle manufacturer or dealer places the film on glazing in a vehicle prior to sale of the vehicle, that manufacturer or dealer has to certify that the glazing continues to be in compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 205 (i.e., has to certify that the glazing still has transmittance of at least 70%).

Regarding vehicles that have already been purchased, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381) 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 knowingly install a solar film on a vehicle for its owner if the vehicle glazing would no longer meet the light transmittance requirements of Standard No. 205. Whether this would be the case would have to be determined by the person making the installation. Violation of this provision could subject the manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business th civil penalties up to $1,000 for each violation.

Please note, however, that under Federal law the vehicle owner may alter his or her vehicle as is desired. This agency does not govern use of vehicles by owners; this is left to the States. Thus, under Federal law, an owner could install solar film on his or her vehcile whether or not such installation affected compliance with Standard No. 205.

In summary, Federal law does not preclude Mrs. Wilson from having darkly tinted film on her passenger car, provided she installed the film herself. However, if a manufacturer, dealer, distributor or motor vehicle repair business (including an auto tint shop) installed the film for Mrs. Wilson, they are in violation of Federal law if the glazing no longer meets the 70% light transmittance requirements of Standard No. 205. The State of California is, of course, free to prohibit vehicle owners from operating vehicles with darkly tinted glazing in its jurisdiction.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

DATE DETAILS

1/3/83 Mrs. Wilson is the daughter of Saxton Pettit whom she says was a very good friend of the Congressman. He used to own the Basket House in Scottsdale. Mrs. W. said the Basket House was America's largest basket store. Her father is now deceased. Mrs. Wilson would like the Congressman' help in acquiring a special pass to enable her to drive from Arizona to California with tinted windows on her car. Apparently Mrs. W. goes through an extension of UCLA for medical treatment. She was stopped on the highway and given a citation for driving in California with tinted windows as the law in California is such that you cannot drive with tinted windows if they don't comply with the designated degree of tint. The ticket amount is $75. She said she called the courthouse in California and explained her situation and asked for a special pass to drive in California. She doesn't think she should have to take off the tint just to drive in California. She said she was told that she could remove the tint, but still have to pay the citation or she would have to drive with her windows rolled down while in California. She thinks these answers are absurd and she doesn't think it fair that she was slapped with such a high fine without even getting a warning first. She said the highway patrolman told her he was just doing his job. She tried to explain that she was unaware of the law and that she only travels to California for treatment. Mrs. W. also said her lawyer tried to talk to the courthouse, but to no avail. I explained to Mrs. W. that this is a state law of California and that there is nothing the Congressman can do as he handled matters on the federal level. I said she would have to comply with our laws. She then said that the highway patrolman told her that this is a federal law. I said I didn't think so, but would forward this to our W.O. for verification. I also suggested she write the Cong. a letter asking him to contact the State of California as it is policy to have a request such as that in writing. She said she is a very sick woman, and doesn't want to take the time and effort if she doesn't have a valid case.

ID: 1983-2.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/15/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Willard B. Synder -- Security National Bank (Kansas)

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 2/8/83 letter from Frank Berndt to William S. Stalder

TEXT:

Mr. Willard B. Snyder Honorary Counsul Federal Republic of Germany Security National Bank 7th Street and Minnesota Avenue Kansas City, KS 66101

Dear Mr. Snyder:

This is in reply to your letter of July 12, 1983, asking me to review and reconsider my letter of February 8, 1983, in which I concluded that a transporter van, to which features are added enabling it to be used occasionally on railroad tracks, in a "motor vehicle" and must meet applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

I am pleased to do so. You raise the possibility "that any off track travel utilization by the Kansas City Southern Railroad will either be on their private roads or land and no on any public roads or highways." We should like confirmation by the Railroad of that fact, if true, or a statement as to the quantum of use on the public roads likely for this vehicle. We should like an indication of how the company intends to dispose of the vans when it has finished with them. It is our assumption that the conversion features can be removed and the vehicle operated solely on the public roads; please correct or confirm this assumption. When we have this information we shall reconsider the matter.

In closing, I must say that your letter reflects the confusion that appears to exist in the public mind regarding jurisdiction of Federal agencies over motor vehicles. In my earlier letter I quoted the definition of "motor vehicle" in 15 U.S.C. 1391(3), the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, while you have replied that "the deciding one" appears to be that of 42 U.S.C. 7251(3)(C). Both definitions are appropriate, the one in Title 15 for purpose of determining applicability of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards issued by the Department of Transportation, and the one in Title 42 for determining applicability of the vehicle emission standards issued by the Environmental Protection Agency. While I can offer no interpretation of whether the van conversion is subject to emission standards I note with interest that EPA's definition of "heavy duty vehicle" is similar in many respects to our definition of "motor vehicle."

Frank Berndt

July 12, 1983

Mr. Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Mr. William Stalder of Carland (a subsidiary of the Kansas City Southern Railroad) forwarded me a copy of your letter to him dated February 8, 1983 wherein you denied an exemption for a Zwei Weg conversion of a Mercedes-Benz vehicle. I would appreciate it if you would review and reconsider this earlier decision. I have enclosed a part of Title 42, section 7521, Paragraph (3)(c) from U.S.C.A., for your easy reference. This is the section which appears to be the deciding one.

I realize that, administratively, you have the possibility to stop here and reaffirm your previous stance, however, I hope you will continue on and give this appeal a fair review since this purchase will be fairly substantial and could easily have a direct effect on the business and its employees here in the Kansas City area.

Title 42, Sect. 7521, Paragraph (3) (c) defines a heavy duty vehicle as "one manufactured primarily for use (emphasis is mine) on the public streets, roads and highways". While the Mercedes-Benz van was manufactured at one point in its development as a street and highway vehicle, its manufacture actually continued on with Zwei Wdg and the end item of production bears only a superficial resemblance to the interim product. Not only have track and alignment systems been permanently added, but new hydraulic and suspension systems as well. The interior controls have also been appropriately modified. The tires and drive system provide the traction on the rails, so there was no need to change this. However, as the end manufactured product, this vehicle is primarily and functionally a track vehicle, not a road vehicle, even though it has a road capability. Also, its cost precludes any economic use as a road vehicle.

I think that it is only fair to assume that the drafters of this statute were not thinking of Zwei Weg products when they wrote about off-highway use. This provision was intended primarily to cover cross-country and all-terrain type vehicles whose operations depend on and use heavily the public streets and roads to get to their cross country all-terrain locations. This type of cross-country, all-terrain vehicle is designed primarily for highway use and its other characteristic is an added feature. With Zwei Weg, the primary manufactured function is rail, not road.

Also, the land (roads) where this vehicle would be utilized, when not in actual rail use, should be considered. I suspect that any off track travel utilization by the Kansas City Southern Railroad will either be on their private roads or land and not on any public roads or highways. If this would be a critical consideration, you might want to consider a conditional waiver - conditional on the non use of public streets and highways by Kansas City Southern Railroad Company.

I am sure we have both personally suffered when we stopped behind a "Big Bus" or "Diesel Truck" at a stoplight and the contribution of the multiple passenger cars to the overall atmosphere is equally as important. However, this vehicle will not be on the public streets (where we could get caught behind it) and the numbers will not be so great as to materially or significantly contribute to the atmospheric pollution.

Based on these factors, I hope that you will be able to grant an exemption for this vehicle, under its particular circumstances.

Sincerely, Willard B. Snyder

ID: 1983-1.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/11/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Susan Reilly -- Reilly Manufacturing

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Susan Reilly Reilly Manufacturing P.O. Box 51 Mt. Vernon, Iowa 52314

Dear Ms. Reilly:

This responds to your letter asking whether a motorcycle helmet fastener your company produces, called "Alpha Clip," complies with Federal requirements.

By way of background information, this agency does not give approvals of vehicles or equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility on the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards.

Safety Standard No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets, includes various minimum performance requirements for motorcycle helmets. The only requirement directly relevant to your fastener is the retention test, which is set forth at section S5.3. The letter you enclosed from the University of Southern California suggests that the clip passes that test.

I would note that Standard No. 218 only applies to new motorcycle helmets and not to replacement equipment for motorcycle helmets. Thus, unless your clip was sold as part of a new motorcycle helmet, the requirements of Standard No. 218 would not be directly applicable. (Please note, however, that the agency discourages helmet users from modifying their helmets. Section S5.6.1 of the standard requires that the following instruction be placed on helmets: "Make no modifications..")

I would also note that should a safety-related defect be discovered in your device, whether by the agency or by yourself, you as the manufacturer would be required under sections 151 et seq. of the Act to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers and provide a remedy for the defect. These provisions apply regardless of whether the device is covered by a safety standard. A copy of the Act is enclosed.

Sincerely

Original signed by Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

Reilly Manufacturing P.O. Box 51 Mt. Vernon, IA 52314 (319) 895-8479

Mr. Frank Berndt 400 Seventh St. SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

At the advice of Mr. Gilky of the NHTSA Safety Compliance Office I am writing for your judgement as to the compliance of our Motorcycle Helmet Fastener to Federal requirements. We believe the "Alpha Clip" meets all requirements and is a safe and reliable product. I have included the clip, packaged for mail order, for your review. As of now, we market only the clip, not O-rings or helmets, and the consumer is responsible for installation.

I have also included a copy of a (unreadable) of U.S.C.. He then tested our fastener as a public service. Since receiving his letter we've added a plastic vinyl cap fitted to the hook, creating an interference fit.

Other recent information is as follows: 1 The hook is designed to fold in within itself when tension is released (we are in the process of moving the design patented)

2. Made of nickel plated (unreadable) steelwire of .142 +.005 - .000 inches dia. Length .900 I .020 in., width l.l90 I .020 in., width .702 I .010 Weight .

3. Has a deformation point of 600 pounds tensile

4. Does not protrude from the helmet

5. Installs directly to helmet strap - nothing is removed from the helmet.

I have also sent a clip and information to Mr. B. Roven, Coordinator of Motorcycle Safety for the Iowa DOT, if you wish to contact him for comment. Please let us know your judgement on our clips compliance as soon as possible.

Thank you for your time and cooperation.

Sincerely, Susan Reilly

June 3, 1983

Mr. Steve Reilly RR 2 Mount Vernon, IA 52314

Dear Steve,

Thank you for sending your new retention clip to us for evaluation. Professor Hurt asked me to run some tests on it and give you some comments.

The beauty of your clip design is that it could be retrofitted to most helmets providing a much more convenient method of fastening than conventional D-rings.

The first test I did was to use your clip on a complete helmet for the actual DOT retention test. Enclosed is that portion of the standard. I used an Electro E3 which has an extremely strong retention system. This choice of helmets made your part the weak link. With the Reilly clip in place, the test result was 0.54 inch elongation @ 300 lbs., about normal for an Electro. The clip showed no deformation at this load.

Taking the entire system up in loading, the strap began to slip at 640 lbs. when the unwelded ends of the clip deformed. This load at failure is typical for many helmets that pass the DOT requirements.

The problem that your design has is answered by many industrial safety codes that require a safety snap latch on all hooks. This spring-loaded device swings inward when engaging the hook and then returns to block the throat of the hook creating a closed loop. Bell Tourlite bicycle helmets use a somewhat similar hook with a safety latch made by Fastex. A less satisfactory solution would be to close up the radius of the hook bend to create an interference fit onto the D-ring.

Please feel free to send out any future revisions to us for evaluation. As with the better mousetrap, the world is ready for a better helmet retention strap fastener.

Sincerely, Original signed by David Thom, Laboratory Technician

ID: 1983-1.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/27/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Byron L. Dorgan, House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear Mr. Dorgan:

This responds to your letter to Secretary Dole, raising concerns expressed to you in a letter signed by Mssrs., Rick Herbel and Douglas Glove, two of your constituents. These gentlemen asked why school districts are not permitted to purchase vans which do not satisfy the comprehensive school bus safety standards, when such vans would "be used only for hauling cheerleaders, supplies and etc." These gentlemen noted that the capacity of these vans would be from 10 to 15 people, and that they would be more economical to use than a full-size school bus. As is more fully explained below, the answer is that the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), together with the comprehensive safety standards for school buses (which the Act required this agency to issue) require that all vehicles designed to carry more than 10 persons which are significantly used to transport school students must be certified as meeting those safety standards. Ordinary passenger vans are not certified as doing such, and therefore cannot be so used.

In 1974, Congress passed the School Bus and Motor Vehicle Safety Amendments (Pub. L. 93-492; hereinafter referred to as "the Amendments"). The Amendments added to the Act the following definition of a school bus; "a passenger motor vehicle which is designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which...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; ..."(15 U.S.C. 1391(14)). Those Amendments also provided that, not later than 15 months after they were enacted, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration had to promulgate minimum performance standards for specified aspects of safety performance. The Amendments specified further that these standards "shall apply to each school bus and item of school bus equipment which is manufactured in or imported into the United States on or after April 1, 1977." (15 U.S.C. 1392(i)(1)(B)).

Prior to this Congressional action, many school districts had used so-called "activity buses" to transport students to and from extra-curricular activities. The activity buses were used because they were said to be more comfortable, more prestigious, and so forth. The floor debates on the Amendments show that Congress was aware of the practice of using these activity buses, yet chose to specify a broad definition of school bus. Congress took this step to require vehicles used solely for extracurricular activities to meet the same safety standards as those used to transport the children to and from school. This decision was based partly on the fact that 150 children were killed in 1971 in school bus accidents (see 120 Cong. Rec. H8120, daily ed., August 12, 1974). The statistics since the Amendments were passed indicate that Congress' goal of greatly reducing these facilities has been accomplished by the school bus safety standards promulgated by this agency. In 1981, the last year for which complete statistics are available, there were 10 fatalities in school bus accidents.

There are two courses of action open to your constituents if they wish to purchase vans for extracurricular activities. First, they could purchase a smaller 9-passenger van, because these vehicles would not be considered school buses under the Congressional definition, which applies only to vehicles carrying more than 10 passengers. Second, they can purchase 15 passenger vans which have been modified and certified as complying with the school bus safety standards. A number of companies will make the necessary modifications to these vans so that they can be certified as complying with those standards.

If you have any further questions on this subject or need any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely, Original signed by Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

Enclosure Constituents' Letter

Oct. 24, 1983

Representative Byran Dorgan Washington, DC

Dear Representative Dorgan,

We have a question on Federal Regulations on why School Districts can not purchase a van type vehicle from a local dealer without meeting full bus specifications when the van would be used only for hauling cheerleaders, supplies and etc. The capacity is from 10 to 15 people and this includes the driver. This is more economical for a school to be able to handle a small group of people say 5 or 6 than to have to use a bus which gets poor mileage and cost considerably more to drive. Can the school purchase a van for small groups and hauling supplies and is this permissible in the regulation?

Thank you,

Sincerely, Original signed by Rick L. Herbel, Superintendent and Douglas Grove, Superintendent, Powers Lake High School Powers Lake, ND

December 9, 1983

Hon. Elizabeth Dole Secretary, Dept. of Transportation 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Secretary Dole:

The attached letter from a constituent raises some legitimate concerns about the regulations that are imposed on school bus vans.

I would appreciate a review of this situation, and a reply to the letter that I have attached.

Sincerely, Original Signed By Byron L. Dorgan, Member of Congress

ID: 1983-2.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/20/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Champ Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

May 20, 1983 NOA-30

Mr. Mike M. Simovich Champ Corporation El Monte, California 91733

Dear Mr. Simovich:

This is in response to your March 23, 1983, letter to Roger Fairchild of this office, regarding the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 (Vehicle Identification Number) to construction type forklift trucks. As you state in your letter, these vehicles are principally designed to operate on a construction site, such as by lifting building materials to upper levels in a building project. The trucks would apparently remain at construction sites for two to twelve months, then move to the next job site. Some models of the trucks have special equipment to facilitate being towed between job sites. While all models presumably could be driven between job sites, none are capable of achieving open highway speeds.

Standard 115 applies only to vehicles manufactured "primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways." NHTSA has interpreted this language to exclude mobile construction equipment which use the highways only to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site. In such cases, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental, not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. Based on the information provided in your letter, your fork-lift trucks would therefore not be subject to Standard 115.

You should be aware that this interpretation applies only to Federal requirements; individual States may establish their own numbering requirements for vehicles outside this agency's jurisdiction (e.g., off-road vehicles). Thus, even though Federal requirements do not apply, it may be that State requirements do apply to your fork-lift trucks.

If you have further questions on this matter, please contact us.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

March 23, 1983

Mr. Roger Fairchild Office of Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation Washington, D.C. 20590

Ref: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 115

Dear Mr. Fairchild:

This Company has been notified by the California Department of Motor Vehicles that we must adhere to the above safety standard to register our forklift trucks, unless we receive exemption from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

This letter is directed to you at the suggestion of Mr. Nelson Erickson of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C.

This Company manufactures Champ rough terrain construction type forklift trucks, having originated the concept in 1947.

The Champ lift truck is principally designed to operate on the construction site, lifting building materials to second and third story levels and to move building materials about the construction site in place for use by the installing personnel.

The site may be a commercial, residential, oil field, agricultural or plant site - the requirement is still an off-the-highway application. Because this type of application requires extra large flatation tires, Champ has been able to provide towing facilities on some models to move the vehicle from site to site at the completion of projects when applicable.

Since most construction projects average two to twelve months and the next site is usually limited to a very few miles, the time the Champ is being towed on the highway is insignificant. The lift truck is not used to carry a load-on the highway.

To our knowledge, only California and Washington States provide provisions for registering these vehicles to provide identification in case of theft and to assure a simple means to provide taxation in lieu of property taxes. No weight fees are assessed since the vehicles do not carry a load on the highways nor do they perform a "for hire" function.

Since the original correspondence in late 1981, no further instructions or directions have been received and it was therefore assumed the requirement for a seventeen character identification number for forklift trucks was exempt. We have contacted other similar forklift manufacturers who are not even aware of the proposed regulation and therefore were further convinced the requirement did not apply to forklift trucks.

In view of the foregoing, we sincerely believe that the regulation applying to transportation and regular highway going vehicles operating on the highways for hire should not apply to off-the-road forklift trucks performing their designated tasks on construction and farm sites.

We sincerely request that the concerned facility review this matter and offer an exemption for the seventeen character vehicle identification for lift trucks. New 1983 Champ lift trucks are already in operation throughout parts of the country which could result in duplication of identifications.

Champ is most happy to work with the Department of Transportation and welcomes the opportunity to cooperate toward any practical resolution.

The enclosed brochures and photo are submitted for better identification of the product.

Please call or write as soon as possible so that we may resolve the problem without further undue complications.

Very truly yours,

CHAMP CORPORATION

Mike M. Simovich President

Enclosures

ID: 1984-4.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/14/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Minot Public Schools -- Gary D. Brevig

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Gary D. Brevig Minot Public Schools 215 Second Street S.E. Minot North Dakota 58701

This responds to your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) which we received on October 19, 1984. Your letter enclosed a prior letter you wrote on December 6, 1983 which, we regret, we never received. You asked several questions about the Federal school bus safety standards and the use of 12 to 16 passenger vans and Greyhound-type buses for extracurricular activities.

Our answers immediataly follow your questions which we have restated below.

1. Are 12 to 16 passenger vans illegal to use for extracurricular activities? Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is unlawful to sell a new vehicle with a capacity of more than 10 persons that will be used to transport school children to and from extracurricular activities, unless the vehicle conforms to the school bus safety standards issued under the Act. Under the Act, all vehicles designed to carry more than 10 persons which are significantly used to transport school children to or from schools or events related to such schools must be certified as meeting those safety standards. Ordinary passenger vans are not certified as doing so, and therefore cannot be sold for such use.

Strictly speaking, it is not "illegal" for schools to use ordinary 12 ta 16 passenger vans which are not certified to the school bus safety standards. It is only illegal for a manufacturer or dealer to sell such a vehicle to a school knowing that the school will use it to transport students. However, we caution schools using these vehicles that they may be unable to insure them, and they may be responsible for significantly increased liability in the event of an accident.

2. If conventional 12 to 16 passenger vans are illegal, can we remove a seat to make them conform to the 10 passenger size limit of Type II vehicles?

As we said in our answer to your question, it is not unlawful under the Vehicle Safety Act for you to operate conventional 12 to 16 passenger vans to carry students. If you own a van of this size, there would be no statutory reason for you to remove a seat.

Keep in mind, however, that a dealer who sells you a van designed to carry more than 10 persons must see to it that the vehicle conforms to the school bus safety standards. If the dealer removes a seat, so that the vehicle would no longer have the seating capacity to be a school bus, he would

thereby convert it into a multipurpose passenger vehicle and would face the need to meet the standards applicable to that category of vehicle including the installatian of safety belts for all seats.

Our regulations do not prohibit an owner, such as a school, from modifying its own vehicles in any way it chooses. The school need not assure that the vehicle complies with any safety standards. Again, however, we urge you to consider the possibility of substantial liability if such a vehicle is involved in an accident. You may want to discuss this matter with your attorney and insurance company.

3. Are Greyhound-type buses legal to use or own? If not, why?

As discussed above, under the Vehicle Safety Act requires buses sold to transport school children to or from extracurricular activities to be certified as meeting the school bus safety standards. Greyhound-type buses as currently manufactured cannot be certified as doing such, and therefore cannot be said for use as a school bus.

4. Would it be legal to go to Hertz and rent a 12 passenger van to send the FFA to their national convention?

We assume that you are asking whether a school may rent a vehicle on a one time basis to meet an unusual school need. The answer is yes. Nothing precludes a school from renting any vehicle on a one time or very occasional basis. This type of rental vehicle would not be "significantly used" to transport school children and, therefore, would not be a school bus according to the definition cited above.

5. Would it be legal to send a bus load of choir students on a spring trip to Denver by chartering Greyhound?

As explained in our answer to your fourth question, renting a Greyhound bus on an occasional basis, such as the case appears to be here, would not be prohibited.

6. Is it legal to contact your local charter bus company to take your basketball team to its game 250 miles away?

As indicated above, a vehicle may be rented on an occasional basis to meet a school need which cannot be met using conventional school buses. However, a long term relationship between a charter bus or leasing company and a school to provide transportation to school events constitutes a "significant use," within the meaning of the Vehicle Safety Act. Thus, a dealer cannot sell a bus to a charter bus company if the dealer knows that the bus will be used to provide school transportation to basketball games on a regular basis unless the bus is certified as meeting the Federal school bus safety standards.

Your final question asked whether there are any forthcoming regulations or amendments pertaining to the questions you have asked. Currently, we do not anticipate rulemaking actions pertaining to the definition, certification and use of school buses.

If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to write.

Sincerely, Original Signed by Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 1985-01.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/12/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Phyllis A. Sirine -- Adminis

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 6/28/85 letter from Jeffrey R. Miller to Joseph C. Bright, Jr.

TEXT:

Ms. Phyllis A. Sirine Administrative Secretary St. Peter's School 319 Lombard Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19147

This responds to your letter to me concerning your use of 13 and 15 passenger vans to transport students to and from extracurricular activities. In a telephone call on January 30, 1985 Mr. John Womack explained how our school bus regulations affect your school's choice of buses. This letter follows up on that conversation and confirms Mr. Womack's discussion of our regulations.

As I understand it, Pennsylvania has recently amended its law to define "bus" to mean "a motor vehicle designed for carrying more than ten persons, including the driver." The old definition had excluded the driver. In effect, a van designed to carry more than ten persons is now a "bus" under Pennsylvania law. To transport students in a van of that size, a school would need to conform the van to the State's requirements for school buses.

The recent change in Pennsylvania law does not in any way affect how our regulations apply to your 13 and 15 passenger vans. Your vehicles have always been classified as buses under Federal law, since under our regulations a bus is defined as a motor vehicle designed for carrying more than ten persons. Further, your vehicles are "school buses" as that term is defined in the Vehicle Safety Act. The basic test under the Vehicle Safety Act is whether, as determined at the time of its first sale, a bus would be used to transport school children to or from school or related events. It is not relevant that the school uses the vehicles only occasionally. When the buses were sold to your school, it should have been clear to the dealer or manufacturer that the vehicles would be used as school buses.

It appears that St. Peter's purchase of new vans for the transportation of students raises questions of compliance with Federal law by the dealers who sold you the vans. The Vehicle Safety Act required the dealer or manufacturer to sell vehicles which were certified as meeting all applicable motor vehicle safety standards. With respect to your future purchases of new vehicles, I urge you to keep in mind that the dealers are obligated to sell you vehicles that meet the school bus safety standards. They should know that they are at risk if they sell nonconforming vehicles.

The Vehicle Safety Act does not prohibit you from operating the 13 and 15 passenger vans. There might, however, be impediments under Pennsylvania State law. We administer a set of guidelines for state highway safety programs under the authority of the Highway Safety Act (Public Law 89-564). These guidelines, called Highway Safety Program Standards, cover a wide range of subjects, including school buses. Individual states have chosen to adopt some or all of the guidelines as their own policies governing their highway safety programs. Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17 (HSPS 17), specifies that a bus used to transport 16 or less students must either be identified with the words "School Bus" and comply with the standard's requirements for color, mirrors and signal lamps, or be devoid of all of these characteristics. As it happens, however, a bus sold for use as a school bus is required by the Vehicle Safety Act to have warning lights and mirrors (as well as many other safety features). Because it must have this equipment, a 13 or 15 passenger bus in a State whose law fully incorporates HSPS 17 would have to be painted and signed as a school bus. For a state that has adopted this standard as its own policy, these specifications apply to activity buses as well as to the buses used for daily transportation.

I want to stress that HSPS 17 will affect you only if Pennsylvania has adopted it and if Pennsylvania accepts our view that the specifications apply to activity buses. Your State officials will be able to give you more information about other State requirements for school buses.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

November 15, 1984

Mr. Frank Berndt National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, NW Washington, DC 20001

Dear Mr. Berndt,

I am writing from St. Peter's School, a private independent school, in Philadelphia. In trying to determine how we can comply with Pennsylvania House Bills #2095 and #2522, I have spoken with Mr. William Hilton at the Pennsylvania Department of Motor Vehicles. When I explained to him that we have two vans, one holding 13 people and the other 15, which enable us to transport an entire class, and that we use the vans only for class trips and school sports events, he suggested I write you about your legal opinion exempting schools from compliance because of "occasional use" as opposed to "significant use" of school vehicles.

We do not transport students to and from school on a daily basis. In September 1984 our vans were used for school activities a total of three times. In October 1984 they were used eleven times.

Would we qualify for the above exemption from the Pennsylvania State House Bills? If so, would you send us a copy of your legal opinion.

I appreciate your help in this matter especially since we are a small school and it would be a hardship for us to comply with these bills.

Sincerely yours,

Phyllis A. Sirine Administrative Secretary