ID: 20550.drn

Ms. Pat Murrell
Director of Child Development
Louisville Central Community Centers, Inc.
1025 Chestnut St.
Louisville, KY 40203

Dear Ms. Murrell:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of a child development center's responsibilities when it considers the type of vehicle it should use to transport children. Our answer is provided below.

Although your letter mentions pre-school, you do not specify the ages of the children under your Centers' care. I will therefore assume that the Centers care for both school age children and pre-school children.

Some background information may be helpful. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ( NHTSA) is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles. Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112 requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable standards. Accordingly, persons selling or leasing a new "school bus" must sell or lease a vehicle that meets the safety standards applicable to school buses.

Our statute defines a "schoolbus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying a driver and more than 10 passengers and which, NHTSA decides, is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events. 49 U.S.C. 30125. By regulation, the capacity threshold for school buses corresponds to that of buses -- vehicles designed for carrying more than ten (10) persons. For example, a 15-person van that is likely to be used significantly to transport students is a "school bus."

Because our laws apply only to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, we do not prohibit child development centers facilities from using their large vans to transport school children even when the vehicles do not meet Federal school bus safety standards. However, each State has the authority to set its own standards regarding the use of motor vehicles, including school buses, so you should also check Kentucky law to see if there are regulations about how you must transport your children.

NHTSA distinguishes between facilities that provide educational programs and those that are strictly custodial. We do not consider child care programs that are custodial in nature to be "schools." However, in recent interpretations (see the attached July 23, 1998 letter to Mr. Don Cote) we have stressed that it is the purpose for which the bus is used, not the identity of the purchaser, that determines whether a dealer must sell a school bus or may sell another type of bus. Thus, if a custodial center were purchasing the bus to use significantly to transport students to or from school or school-related events, a dealer knowing of this purpose is required to sell a school bus.

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

In the abstract of its report, the NTSB issued several Safety Recommendations, including the following that was directed to child care providers such as the National Association of Child Care Professionals, the National Child Care Association, and Young Mens' and Young Women's Christian Associations:

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

In conclusion, we wish to emphasize that school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country, and that we therefore strongly recommend that all buses that are used to transport school children be certified as meeting NHTSA's school bus safety standards. In addition, using 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.

I hope this information is helpful. As you requested, I am enclosing copies of 49 U.S.C. Sections 30112 and 30125. In lieu of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards for school buses, 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 "conventional vans." Please be advised that there are small school buses (under 10,000 lb gross vehicle weight rating) available that seat 15 children. Because it would not be cost effective to do so, we do not recommend retrofitting 15-passenger vans to meet school bus standards.

You also expressed concern about the costs of using school buses (such as higher vehicle costs and higher insurance, maintenance and fuel costs) rather than vans. NHTSA has recently examined this issue. Our inquiries to the vehicle manufacturers indicate that while school buses are somewhat more expensive than large vans, the difference is not so large that it would prevent child care centers from acquiring school buses. The cost range for 15-passenger school buses is approximately $30-32,000, compared to $25-28,000 for 15-passenger vans. The longer service life for school buses will offset a part of this difference.

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,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:VSA#571.3
d.10/15/99

ID: 06-007683rls

ID: nht89-2.92

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: AUGUST 31, 1989

FROM: CADWALLADER JONES -- PRESIDENT, JONES FORD INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 3-20-90 TO CADWALLADER JONES, JONES FORD INC., FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD, NHTSA; [A35; VSA 102(14); PART 571.3]

TEXT: We need some help in the interpretation of Section 571.3 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. This involves the sale, lease or rental of Ford Motor Company manufactured Econoline Vans and Club Wagons. We understand that these vehicles having more than 10 designated seating positions are not intended for use as "school buses" and are not designed to comply with certain Federal Motor vehicle safety standards uniquely applicable to school buses. We understand that a school bus is defined in S ection 571.3 as a "Motorvehicle -- designed for carrying more than 10 persons -- that is sold, or introduced into interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, but does not include a bus designed a nd sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation."

We have questions of further definition of "school bus" and of "student".

1. Is there an age limit or occupational definition of "student"?

A) Adults being transported to and from adult education classes by United Way.

B) College students-athletic teams, etc.

C) Churches that don't have day schools but transport children on occasions

D) Highschool students-athletic teams, etc.

E) Playground teams-no connection with schools

F) Day care center

We understand the prohibition against installing smaller size seats in a window van and painting it school bus yellow like we used to do in the '70s. It's these "fringe" uses that are not on a daily basis about which we are concerned.

We will appreciate your help in this area.

ID: nht90-4.13

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 18, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Nelson Behar -- National Marketing Director, LooPo

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to NHTSA information sheet dated 9-85 entitled Where To Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations (text omitted); Also attached to letter dated 7-11-90 from N. Behar to S. Kratzke

TEXT:

This responds to your fax to Steve Kratzke of my staff, in which you asked whether LooPo, which you described as "a seatbelt slacking device," complies with current regulatory and statutory requirements. I am pleased to have this opportunity to provide you with the following information.

It is not entirely clear how your company's "slacking device" would work. One type of "slacking device" is the comfort clip, in which a device is attached to the safety belt and can be positioned by an occupant to introduce and maintain slack in the safe ty belt system by physically preventing the belt slack from being taken up by the belt's retractor. We have explained how our regulations apply to comfort clips in a February 7, 1986 letter to Mr. Lewis Quetel (copy enclosed). Another type of "slacking device" is one that clips the shoulder belt to the lap belt nearer the middle of the wearer's abdomen. We have explained how our regulations apply to these belt positioning devices in a February 11, 1988 letter to Mr. Roderick Boutin (copy enclosed). I have also enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, such as this product.

As our previous letters explain, aftermarket sales and installation of these devices by individual vehicle owners are not prohibited by any Federal statutory or regulatory requirements. Nevertheless, the use of these devices raises some serious safety c oncerns if the devices result in the introduction of excess slack into the shoulder belt or otherwise reduce the safety protection afforded by the safety belts.

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

ID: 1984-2.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/19/84

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: JOHN S. CUCHERAN -- VICE PRESIDENT DESIGN & ENGINEERING JAC PRODUCTS, INC.

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Cucheran:

This is in reply to your letter of February 8, 1984, addressed to Mr. Vinson of this office requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. The reply that Mr. Vinson had drafted was misplaced while being circulated for comment, and we greatly regret any inconvenience that this may have caused you. We are also replying to a telephone call Mr. Vinson made to you on June 14.

You have informed us, in essence, that there appear to be certain vehicle configurations in which photometric requirements for the center high-mounted stop lamp, at the 5 degree down position, will not be met when such vehicles are equipped with a deck-mounted luggage rack of the type manufactured by JAC Products. You have asked for an interpretation "exempting deck rack cross rails from compliance to the 5 degree down cone area"; alternatively, you request that we "consider a new rule exempting the 5 degree down cone requirements for vehicles supplied with deck mounted luggage carriers". You have also informed us that General Motors intends to use the new lamp on some of its 1985 model lines, and that because of this requirement the company will drop the rack as an optional accessory.

General Motors petitioned the agency to reconsider this requirement, asking for a modified level of performance if a vehicle is unable to meet the original values and test points at 5 degrees down. The agency denied this petition on May 17, 1984 (copy enclosed).

Absent a change in the language of the standard, we have no authority to exempt, on our own motion, "deck rack cross rails from compliance". Temporary exemptions are granted only to manufacturers of vehicles, upon their petition, and only for a limited purpose, after a period of public comment. Given the rule concerned and the factual situation you present, we see no viable basis for such an exemption petition.

We understand that your company is a manufacturer of luggage racks for motor vehicles, and General Motors intends to offer these racks on certain of its 1985 J-model passenger cars, which will be equipped with the new stop lamp as standard equipment. The J-cars will meet all the requirements in Standard No. 108 with the luggage rack installed. However, you have received inquiries as to the permissibility of blockage of the lamp by a duffel or other load on the luggage rack.

A manufacturer certifies conformance of a vehicle with Standard No. 108 in the state that it is sold to the consumer and not on the basis of how the consumer may use it. This means that the vehicle must meet Standard No. 108 with any factory option installed, or dealer option installed before sale. For example, if GM offered the J-car with both a luggage rack and a duffel, a car would have to meet center high-mounted lamp requirements with both rack and duffel in place. But there is no Federal requirement that the lamp meet requirements if the duffel is supplied by the vehicle owner. If there is any prohibition, it would be contained in a State law or municipal ordinance.

If you have any further questions, we shall be happy to answer them.

Sincerely,

ID: nht90-1.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/29/90

FROM: TIMOTHY A. KELLY -- SALEM VENT INTERNATIONAL

TO: DAVID A GREENBURG -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TITLE: SALEM BUS VENTILATOR/ESCAPE HATCH - FMVSS 217

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 05/30/90, FROM STEPHEN P WOOD -- NHTSA TO TIMOTHY A. KELLY; REDBOOK A35; STANDARD 217; LETTER DATED 01/29/90 FROM TIMOTHY A. KELLY TO DAVID A. GREENBURG -- NHTSA; RE SALEM BUS VENTILATOR/ESCAPE HATCH - FMVSS 217

TEXT: (Illegible Word) you for the courtesies extended to the writer during my visit with (Illegible Word) Thursday afternoon January 25th, following my previous discussions (Illegible Word) Delarm. As we discussed, Salem Vent International already manufactur es a roof ventilating panel as shown on print #4220-001 attached. As (Illegible Word), the 4220-001 lacks a mounting frame which is supplied as part (Illegible Word) bus. To complete our program, we will need to design our own mounting frame and also a method by which the cover can swing free to provide an (Illegible Word) hatch. My concern was that we design the proper size to conform FMVSS 217.

(Illegible Word) said that his reading of the spec was that the opening had to (Illegible Word) an ellipsoid having 20" as its major axis and 13" as its minor (Illegible Word) and that this ellipsoid had to be able to fit through the escape (Illegible Wo rd) in the horizontal position. It looks to me that our existing tool(Illegible Word) accomodate this ellipsoid with ease.

Further discussed the specification as to what type of busses 217 (Illegible Word) covers and you pointed out that school busses were specifically covered by 217. While a roof escape hatch/ventilator is undoubtedly a (Illegible Word) option, it is not m andatory and does not allow the builder to (Illegible Word) any other methods of egress by its presence.

(Illegible Word), on other types of busses (transit, inter-city, airport, etc.) if builder elects to use an escape hatch/ventilator in the roof, they are (Illegible Word) to delete the rear exit door.

(Illegible Word) I left you I began to wonder what would happen if a bus builder put (Illegible Word) than one ventilator/escape hatch in the roof. Would the builder be (Illegible Word) to delete other specified methods of egress other, than the rear (I llegible Word) or would the additional ventilator/escape hatches really only serve purpose of additional ventilation to the bus.

2

You said that if I wanted an official opinion from the Office of the Chief Counsel, that I ought to request it in writing. John Machey suggested the same thing when I talked with him this morning and so attached hereto is a formal request for your opini on on my questions. I have tried to make this as simple as possible and I would be happy to hear from you if you have any questions as to my request.

Again it was my pleasure to meet you.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ID: nht71-2.7

DATE: 02/16/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. A. Diaz; NHTSA

TO: Ford Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This will acknowledge your letter dated January 22, 1971, to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, requesting the addition of the 5 1/2-J alternative rim size for the 175 SR 13 tire size designation to Table I - Appendix A of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110.

On the basis of the data submitted indicating compliance with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 109 and No. 110 and other information submitted in accordance with the procedural guidelines set forth in the Federal Register, Volume 33, No. 195, page 14964, dated October 5, 1963, the 5 1/2-JJ alternative for the 175 a 13 tire size designation will be listed within Table I - Appendix A of Standard No. 110. Our substitution of rim size 5 1/2 J by 5 1/2 JJ follows our practice of not listing the "J" or "JK" rim contours since a footnote to Table I, Appendix "A" states "Where JJ rims are specified in the above table, J and JK rim contours are permissible."

The above change will be published in the Federal Register in the near future.

The addition of new alternative rims to the table is accomplished through an abbreviated procedure consisting of the publication in the Federal Register of the petitioned alternative rim. If no adverse comments are received, the amendment becomes effective after 30 days from date of publication. If comments objecting to amendments are received, additional rule making pursuant to Part 553 of the Procedural Rules for motor vehicle safety standards will be considered.

As we reviewed your attachments we note on attachment I - page 1 a statement that "in compliance with Legal Requirements 4.04 for the U. S. A., the tires were to be burst not only for one wheel position, but for all of the four wheel positions. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110 - Section 4.4.1 requires that only one tire be tested for retention on the rim under conditions of rapid deflation. There is a possibility of some misunderstanding in these items which may be causing the overseas people doing more testing than necessary.

He also note in attachment III that the(Illegible Words) data is referenced to specific tires but the rim is not identified. This lack of rim identification precludes using the data for petition purposes even though the data level is of interest and shows that a(Illegible Word) seating problem is very unlikely. Fortunately for the purposes of this petition, Attachment II - page 2 contained adequate but less information(Illegible Word) Unseating data.

ID: 7114

Mr. John W. Phillips
Project Engineer
Transportation Research Center of Ohio
East Liberty, OH 43319

Dear Mr. Phillips:

This responds to your letter to this office dated March 20, 1992, in which you inquired whether the Hybrid III large male test dummy, Model No. H3-95-R with 1992 pelvis upgrade, manufactured by First Technology Safety Systems, is an "approved equivalent test device" for conducting the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 202 test. I am sorry we could not respond to you on or before April 2 as you requested.

Standard 202, Head Restraints (49 CFR Part 571.202), specifies requirements for head restraints to reduce the frequency and severity of neck injury in rear-end and other collisions. S4.3 of the standard requires that "a head restraint that conforms to either (a) or (b) shall be provided" for certain seating positions. In Standard 202's demonstration procedures relating to the compliance option set forth in S4.3(a), S5.1(a) specifies use of a "dummy having the weight and seated height of a 95th percentile adult male with an approved representation of a human, articulated neck structure, or an approved equivalent test device."

The Model H3-95-R dummy is marketed by First Technology Safety Systems as a "95th Percentile Male Hybrid III Test Dummy." We therefore assume that it has the weight and seated height of a 95th percentile adult male. The only remaining issue of whether the dummy can be used under S5.1(a) is whether it has "an approved representation of a human, articulated neck structure."

In the preamble to the final rule establishing Standard No. 202, NHTSA provided clarification of the term "approved representation of a human articulated neck structure." The agency stated that a neck structure of a test device would be approved if it could be demonstrated by technical test data that the articulation of the neck structure represented that of a human neck. NHTSA indicated that approval could only be given to a structure sufficiently described in performance parameters to ensure reliable and reproducible test data. See 33 FR 2945-2946, February 14, 1968.

You did not provide any specifications or test data concerning the Hybrid III 95th percentile male dummy (Model H3-95-R). However, NHTSA conducted an extensive evaluation of the Hybrid III 50th percentile male dummy, including its neck, in the context of specifying its use (as one of two alternative 50th percentile male dummies) in Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, dummy. The specifications for the Hybrid III test dummy, for purposes of Standard No. 208, are set forth in Subpart E of 49 CFR Part 572. The specifications for the other 50th percentile male dummy used in Standard No. 208 are set forth in Subpart B of 49 CFR Part 572.

We understand that the Hybrid III 95th percentile male dummy is essentially a scaled version of the Hybrid III 50th percentile male dummy. We therefore approve a Hybrid III 95th percentile male dummy for purposes of Standard 202, so long as its neck structure is essentially the same as that of the Part 572 Hybrid III test dummy, other than minor differences related to adjustments for length. For the same reasons, we approve use of a 95th percentile male version of the dummy specified in Subpart B of 49 CFR Part 572, so long as its neck structure is essentially the same as that specified in Part 572, other than minor differences related to adjustments to length.

I hope the above information will be of assistance to you. If you have any further questions with regard to this matter, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:202 d:5/5/92

ID: nht80-1.45

DATE: 04/03/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Dick Pilch

TITLE: FMVSS INTEPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your February 7, 1980 letter to the Department of Transportation, in which you complained about the failure of a tire on your truck. Specifically, you stated that the tires on the front axle of your truck were overloaded by 570 pounds each, and that no non-radial tire is currently manufactured which would not have been overloaded if used on this front axle.

If the tires which were overloaded came as original equipment on the truck, the manufacturer of the truck violated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120 (49 CFR 571.120). Paragraph S5.1.2 of Standard No. 120 requires the sum of the maximum load ratings of the tires fitted to any axle to be at least equal to the gross axle weight rating of that particular axle. This requirement is applicable to all trucks manufactured on or after September 1, 1976. If your truck was manufactured after that date, please send me the name of the manufacturer as well as the information provided by the manufacturer specifying the appropriate tire sizes to be used on the truck. The information concerning appropriate tire sizes will appear on a label on the door latch post on the driver's side of the truck. If the manufacturer has violated Standard No. 120, appropriate steps will be taken by the agency.

You also stated that certain radial tires would have met the load-carrying requirements for your truck, but that you would not use radial tires because of erratic wear patterns. For your information, I have enclosed a booklet published by the Rubber Manufacturers Association setting forth information on the care and service of radial and non-radial truck tires. On page 11 of this booklet there is a description of the irregular wear to which you refer, as well as instructions on how to prevent the irregular wear from lessening the overall mileage the tire will give you. Hence, if you wish to use radial tires on your truck, there is no reason to expect them to perform unsatisfactorily.

More significant, however, is the misunderstanding you have in suggesting that no bias ply tire is manufactured which would not have been overloaded on your truck. Such a tire is now manufactured and has been manufactured for at least the past 20 years. On page 30 of the enclosed booklet, you will find a table showing the load-carrying capacity of bias ply tire sizes mounted on 15 degrees drop center rims. The tire size mounted on your truck, the 11-22.5, does indeed have a maximum load of 5,430 pounds if it is a load range F tire. However, a load range G tire of that same size has a maximum load of 6,040 pounds, and would not be overloaded if used on your truck. This is the tire you should probably use on the front axle.

I am sorry to hear of your accident and hope that you have recovered from your injuries. Your complaint about the failure of the Uniroyal Delta tire has been recorded, and the agency will be alert to other indications of problems with this tire. To date, however, we do not have sufficient data indicating a safety problem to open a formal investigation.

I want to thank you for taking the time to express your concern about motor vehicle safety. It is only through the efforts of concerned citizens such as yourself that we can ensure maximum safety for all users of the highway. If you have any further questions or concerns about this matter or any other aspect of highway safety, please do not hesitate to contact me.

SINCERELY,

February 7, 1980

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

It is unfortunate when corporations become so large that they influence our Courts and brainwash the general public through advertising and news media.

Case in Point:

An individual purchased two tires to replace those that were wearing out. He bought bias ply tires in preference to radial tires because eratic wear patterns are standard for radial tires on a free turning wheel on all makes and this hasn't been corrected to this date. The last set was on the vehicle for 85,000 miles and was in good enough condition to put on the rear of the truck. Some 30,000 miles later, after 1-1 1/2 hours driving time on a cool morning, the temperature being 60 degrees or less and raining lightly, the tire blew out with no warning, causing the vehicle to go off the road over an embankment. The vehicle came to rest turned almost over on its side and spilling the load off the vehicle. This destroyed the truck and trailer and injured the operator. The driver was unaware of the injury at the time of the accident. The symptons became apparent about three months later, which rendered him almost crippled for many months. To this day the driver is still in pain, sometimes quite severe.

Getting back to our "Great Society" (as the joke is sometimes put), we are supposed to look out for the people that use the products that these careless giants put on the market, which are a danger to life, limb and property. There is also the danger of one of these tires blowing out on a six-lane freeway, such as that in Los Angeles, where one driving during the traffic rush about 3 p.m., could kill several people. However, those companies can continue to manufacture defective equipment by the thousands and sell it to the people. It appears as though nothing better can be had.

Example: Our federal and state governments have passed laws that a large truck can gross 80,000 pounds if it is equipped with five axles and the proper length. Front axle 12,000 pounds Tandem driver axle 34,000 pounds Tandem trailer axle 34,000 pounds

Let's look closer at the manufacturer's specifications.

A single tire, 5,430 pounds at 85 pound psi X 2 = 10,860

From 12,000 pounds - 1,140 for both For a single tire = 570 pounds overload.

Does the manufacturer say anything? No. They appear to be unconcerned as long as they can sell tires.

Let's continue. Concerning the manufacturers and their specifications, they say on dual tires, one should run 75 pounds psi and be able to carry 5,060 pounds on each tire. Let's compare the weight difference.

State and Federal Manufacturer 85 psi 12,000 pounds - single steer axle 5,430 X 2 = 10,860 pounds 6, 050 X 8 = 48, 75 psi 34,000 " - dual tandem axle 400 " 34,000 "- dual 6,050 X 8 = 48,400 " 80,000 pounds 107,660 pounds

Let's take a closer look for safety's sake. Or does safety go out the window when you are talking about a multi-million dollar corporation? It seems to apply only to the poor, dumb truck driver, doesn't it?

Look at 34,000 pounds divided by 8 = 4,250 pounds maximum weight. The safety margin is good, to say the least.

12,000 pounds divided by 2 = 6,000 pounds. Woops! Where did the safety margin go? Now doesn't this make a lot of sense? Run dual wheels on driver axle or trailer axle and you have 1,750 pounds to play with. If one tire should let go, you could in no way lose control of the rig. However, on the steer axle, you have no safe margin, As a matter of fact, you are exceeding specifications all the time. Most trucks are carrying approximately 10,000 or 11,000 pounds on the front axle at all times. Also, there isn't a tire manufactured that has the specifications that it should have as far as safety goes. There is a radial tire that will carry the 6,000 pounds, so they say. However, the manufacturer will state that on two free rolling wheels, you will have eratic wear patterns. As yet there isn't a tire manufactured that doesn't have them.

There are two ways to remedy the problem. Let's either change the load limits to compare with what the manufacturer says, or make the manufacturer (which we know won't happen) make a tire that has the rating needed to put the same percent of safety on the steer axle that there is on the dual driver or trailer axles. The third way to remedy the problem and the one most likely of the three, is to place this letter in the round file, commonly known as the "trash can".

Yours truly,

Dick Pilch

P.S. Also, we could make the same true for tire manufacturers and make them totally responsible for their products, pull them out of production when found bad and let them suffer the loss of what the user does in terms of injury, income and life.

TO:

UNIROYAL - Detroit, Michigan KIRO TV - Seattle, Washington

KING TV - Seattle, Washington

KONG TV - Seattle, Washington

20/20 - Seattle, Washington

Senator Jackson - Washington, D.C.

Senator Magnuson - Washington, D. C.

U.S. Department of Transportation - Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Transportation - Seattle, Washington

Office of Chief Counsel - Washington, D.C. Federal Highway Administration

National Highway Safety Administration - Washington, D.C.

Center for Study

c/o Ralph Nader - Washington, D.C.

Judge William Goodloe (Superior Court) Seattle, Washington

Over Drive Magazine

Robert Peterson

c/o Mother Trucker Magazine - Los Angeles, California

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION VEHICLE OWNER'S QUESTIONNAIRE

Pleading Omitted. Vehicle code provisions omitted.

ID: aiam5658

"Dear Ms. Mastrucci: This responds to your request for a interpretation as to which passenger vehicles and which multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) meet the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs). You ask this since Florida law allows transportation of pupils in MPVs that meet 'all federal motor vehicle safety standards for passenger cars.' As explained below, in recent years many of the FMVSSs have been amended to have the same requirements for passenger cars and MPVs. However where differences exist, the only way your client, Dade County School Board, will be able to determine that a specific MPV meets the FMVSSs applicable to passenger cars would be to contact the vehicle's manufacturer. NHTSA is authorized under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 Motor Vehicle Safety to issue FMVSSs for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The FMVSSs are codified at Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 571. There are presently 53 FMVSSs. Each FMVSS's applicability section specifies the motor vehicles and/or equipment to which it applies. Under 49 U.S.C. section 30112, a person may not manufacture or sell any motor vehicle unless the vehicle meets all applicable FMVSSs and is so certified. Section 30115 establishes a self-certification system whereby the vehicle manufacturer is responsible for certifying that the vehicle meets the safety requirements in the standards applicable to the vehicle. In the certification, the manufacturer must specify the vehicle type (e.g., passenger car, MPV, truck, bus) of the vehicle. Each vehicle type's definition is found at 49 CFR Part 571.3 Definitions. Thus, a new passenger car sold in the U.S. must be certified by the manufacturer as meeting the FMVSSs applicable to passenger cars, and a new MPV must be certified as meeting the standards applicable to MPVs. In recent years, many FMVSSs have been amended to specify the same requirements for passenger cars and MPVs. For example, for model year 1998 vehicles, Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection will specify identical requirements for passenger cars and MPVs. For Standard No. 214, Side impact protection, in July 1995, NHTSA issued a final rule in which MPVs manufactured after September 1, 1998 would be required to meet the same dynamic testing requirements as passenger cars. However, some safety standards that apply to both passenger cars and MPVs do not specify identical requirements for each vehicle type. For example, Standard No. 103 Windshield defrosting and defogging systems applies to passenger cars and MPVs, but specifies different requirements for each vehicle type. There is no easy way to determine whether a particular MPV meets the passenger car safety standards. Because of differences in FMVSS requirements for passenger cars and MPVs, for information whether a particular MPV meets the passenger car standards, you should contact the MPV's manufacturer. Please note that for some safety standards such as Standard No. 208, a manufacturer may have phased-in the compliance of its MPVs with the safety standard over several years. Therefore, some MPVs manufactured in a particular year may meet the newer standard but other MPVs may not. For information about whether a specific MPV meets the passenger car standards, the manufacturer should be provided with the MPV's seventeen digit vehicle identification number (VIN), which can be found on the vehicle's certification label on the hinge pillar, the door-latch post, or the door edge that meets the door-latch post, next to the driver's seating position. I hope this information is helpful. If you need any further information, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel";