ID: 86-5.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/22/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood for Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. J. Leon Conner

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. J. Leon Conner Manager Long & Associates, Inc. P.O. Box 691 San Angelo, TX 76902

Dear Mr. Conner:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of the requirements of 49 CFR S575.104, Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS). Specifically, you asked wether this regulation requises the treadwear testing for a tire size to be conducted only with vehicles that specify the subject tire size either as the original equipment size or as one of the recommended optional tire sizes. The UTQGS does not contain any such provision.

The conditions and procedures to be followed in grading tires for treadwear under the UTQGS are set forth in S575.104(e). That section specifies tire loading conditions and rim dimensional requirements for the vehicles used in the treadwear testing. However, it does not specify that the vehicles used in the treadwear testing can only be used to test tire sizes recommended as either original equipment or optional tires on the vehicle when new. Accordingly, persons testing tires to determine the treadwear grade may mount the tires on any vehicle, provided that the tire and vehicle satisfy all the requirements of S575.104(e), relating to tire construction, inflation pressure, size designation, vehicle loading, and wheel alignment.

You stated in your letter that the UTQGS compliance test procedures, used by this agency for conducting its enforcement testing for treadwear grades, currently specify that tire sizes must be tested on vehicles that specify that size as either original equipment or recommended optional size. This specification may have been adopted after the following language appeared in a 1975 preamble to a final rule establishing the UTQGS:

Several commenters suggested that the rule specify all vehicles in a given convoy be identical, to reduce variations in projected treadlife...Variations in vehicle type, however, do not appear to produce significant variations in treadwear projections. Nevertheless, to minimize such variations, tires will be tested for compliance only on vehicles for which they are available as original equipment or recommended replacement options. 40 FR 23073, at 23076, May 28, 1975.

As explained above, the UTQGS regulation does not specify that the vehicles used in treadwear testing can only be used to test tire sizes recommended as either original equipment or optional tires on the vehicle. The agency's compliance test procedures are only the methods the agency itself uses to determine the appropriate treadwear grade for a tire. Persons outside the agency are not bound by any testing conditions and methods not set forth in the UTQGS itself. Such persons may, therefore, conduct their own testing in a manner different from that specified in NHTSA's compliance test procedures, provided that their testing satisfies all requirements of S575.104(e).

You also stated that the use of different vehicles for treadwear testing of tires will produce measurably different treadwear grades for the tire, even when all the vehicle factors are closely and properly controlled. As quoted above, NHTSA concluded that vehicle-to-vehicle variations "do not appear to produce significant variations in treadwear projections", when it examined this issue in 1975. However, the agency is currently reexamining the effects of vehicle-to-vehicle variations on treadwear projections, particularly with respect to front-wheel vs. rear-wheel drive vehicles and passenger cars vs. light trucks and vans. If you wish to provide some additional data on this subject, please forward the data to Mr. Barry Felrice, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, at this address. We would be interested in analyzing whatever data form the basis for your belief that our 1975 conclusion was incorrect.

Please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff, at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992, if you have any further questions about our UTQGS.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ms. Erika Jones, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office Of Chief Counsel, NAO-30 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20500

Subject: Uniform Tire Quality Grading Testing

Dear Ms. Jones:

We are requesting clarification of the UTQG Stnadard relative to selection of test vehicles.

The UTQG Compliance Test Procedure requires that, "the vehicles must specify the tire size to be tested as standard equipment or approved alternate for that vehicle", i.e. government compliance testing will be performed with vehicles selected in this manner. It behooves the tester then to select vehicles in the same manner it would seem.

While outdoor road testing inherently involves a large number of variables it is apparent from our accumulated CMT data that different cars do produce different wear rates for a given set of tires and conditions, even when vehicle factors (wheel alignment, wheel loads, mechanical maintenance) are closely and properly controlled. It is therefore possible to bias the candidate tire grades measurably through selection of the control tire car, the candidate tire car or both. Use of certain larger vehicles produce faster wear of the CMT tires and consequently higher grades for the candidate tire; tested in the same convoy.

If the UTQG Standard allows the tester to choose any car in which he can attain the required wheel loads, manufacturers may seek the tester who can obtain the highest grades.

Hopefully you can clarify the intent of NHTSA on this matter. If we can be of assistance in any way please do not hesitate to call on us.

Sincerely,

J. Leon Conner JLC:bf

ID: nht76-1.39

DATE: 06/29/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. Womack for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Dunlop Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letters of March 22 and June 9, 1976, concerning the classification of motor-scooters and the tires designed for them.

"Motorcycle" is defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3 as:

a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground.

"Motor-driven cycle" is defined as:

a motorcycle with a motor than produces 5 brake horsepower or less.

The category of "motor-driven cycles" includes, but is not limited to, motorized bicycles. There is no definition of "scooter" or "motor-scooter". Such a vehicle is a motorcycle and, depending on the brake horsepower of its engine, may also be a motor-driven cycle. In any event, a tire for use on such a vehicle is a motorcycle tire that is subject to all requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. The standard does not presently recognize a category of speed-restricted motorcycle tires. However, your letter is being considered in the preparation of the forthcoming Federal Register notice on this subject.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

DUNLOP LIMITED

Ref: RGC/MJW/5859/40G

Richard B Dyson -- Assistant Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

March 22, 1976

Dear Mr Dyson

SCOOTER TYRES - MVSS 119

I am advised that american importers of scooters are insisting that tyres for these machines be labelled to show conformity with Standard 119 and this poses a number or problems, both legal and practical.

I am taking the liberty of writing to you for advice on this subject since it is closely related to the general question of the application of Standard 119 to the case of tyres for speed-restricted motorcycles i.e. the case covered in ETRTO submission No. 6/119 dated 5 February 1975; for ease of reference I would advise that you acknowledged this petition in your letter N40-30MS dated 4 March 1975 and also advised in your letter N40-30, dated 26 February 1976, that you expected a Federal Register notice on this petition to be published shortly.

The primary problem is one of definition, since I cannot find any legal definition of "scooter" or "motor-scooter".

On the other hand it can be argued, with justification, that a scooter falls within the definition of "motorcycle" or "motor-driven cycles" of part 571.3 "Definitions" depending on the brake horse power of the engine with which the machine is equipped.

I would believe - and perhaps you would be kind enough to confirm this - that the term "motor-driven cycle" is intended to cover motorised bicycles e.g. mopeds, rather than vehicles whose sole source of propulsion is an engine.

Should this be the case then we are left with the definition of motorcycle as including scooters and while this is legally reasonable the resulting implications are somewhat unreasonable within the context of Standard 119 and, in particular, the high speed test requirement of Standard 119.

This test is designed to establish a high speed capability for motorcycle tyres of 85+mph on a test drum which equates to a speed significantly greater than 85 mph on the road and is a prefectly reasonable test for "full-blooded" motorcycles which normally have a speed capability of this order, but is totally unrealistic for scooter tyres, since scooters, in general, are, by design and nature of the vehicle, of much lower speed capability, normally c50-60 mph max. It is for this reason that they are equipped with very small tyres, usually in the order of 4" tyre section width and fitting wheels of 8", 10" or occasionally 12" diameter - clearly these are tyres not designed for very high speed operations.

However, unless scooters are defined differently from motorcycles these small tyres will be required to pass the high speed test of Standard 119.

An alternative, which I would believe to be legally admissible, would be to mark scooter tyres as speed-restricted tyres reference Standard 119 para. S6.5 (e), on the basis that the high speed test would no longer be applicable. In the case of scooter tyres the speed restriction could be 60 mph which would then directly relate scooter tyres to "tyres for small cubic capacity motorcycles up to 60 mph (or 100 km/h)" of ETRTO submission No. 6/119.

Should this alternative be the one adopted this would resolve the problem of the high speed test but there would then remain the question of the breaking energy values to be used i.e. either the values in Table 2 of Standard 119 under the title "motorcycle" or under the title "all 12" or smaller rim size" and this can presumably be resolved only after a decision is taken on whether scooters remain within the definition of motorcycle or are separately defined e.g. as "motorcycles of restricted speed capability 60 mph max".

In view of the fact that our inability to determine the relevance of scooter tyres within the context of Standard 119, and hence the test and markings which are applicable, it will be appreciated that there is a certain barrier to trade in this context; thus your earliest advice on the problems expressed above would be appreciated and, in particular, your advice on whether this problem can be treated as an extension of ETRTO petition No. 6/119.

Yours sincerely

R G CLIFTON -- Manager - Tyre Legislation

ID: nht76-1.41

DATE: 02/24/76

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

TO: Layton Paving Equipment Specialists

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 14, 1976, asking whether your company's paver product must comply with the requirements of Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations, particularly Standards No. 119 and 120.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues safety standards and regulations for "motor vehicles." Section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act defines a motor vehicle as a vehicle "manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways." Thus, a motor vehicle is a vehicle which the manufacturer expects will use public highways as part of its intended function. The primary function of some vehicles is of a mobile, workperforming nature, and, as such, their manufacturer contemplates a primary use of the highway. Mobile cranes, rigs, and towed equipment such as chippers and pull-type street sweepers that travel at a normal highway speed are examples in this area. These motor vehicles qualify as trucks or trailers. As such they are subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations. On the basis of the information you have sent us your company's towed paver appears to be in this category of vehicles, and would therefore be considered a "motor vehicle."

There are some vehicles which are excepted from the motor vehicle classification despite their use on the highway. Highway maintenance and contruction equipment, lane stripers, self-propelled asphalt pavers, and other vehicles whose maximum speed does not exceed 20 mph and whose abnormal configuration distinguishes them from the traffic flow are not considered motor vehicles. Your company's paver would not appear to qualify in this category of vehicles since, as a towed paver, it would travel at a speed greater than 20 mph, at least when moving between job sites.

Consequently, your product must comply with the requirements of the Federal standards and regulations. Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars, does not directly impose any duty on you, because it applies to tires rather than vehicles. However, the NHTSA has recently issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (copy enclosed). This standard does require, effective September 1, 1976, that your vehicles be equipped with tires that conform to Standard No. 119 and are of sufficient load rating.

In addition to compliance with the safety standards and regulations, you must ensure that your product does not contain a defect relating to motor vehicle safety. Vehicles containing such defects are subject to the notification, remedy, and civil penalty provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. For example, a vehicle equipped with tires that are designed for speed-restricted use would probably be considered to contain a safety-related defect if the vehicle is expected to travel at higher speeds.

Please contact us if we can be of any further assistance.

YOURS TRULY,

LAYTON

PAVING EQUIPMENT SPECIALISTS

January 14, 1976

Frank A. Berndt, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

RE: Motor Vehicle Standards 119 and 120

Pursuant to your request we are writing you with reference to the above two standards and as to whether or not they apply to the construction machinery we manufacture. To make it easier for you and your staff to review our request, I am enclosing herewith five items which are labeled "Exhibit A" through "D."

Exhibit A shows the tires that we are using as an undercarriage for our paver. These tires are specially designed and manufactured to our specifications, size 530/450 x 6 inches, six-ply safety rib. This is a full six-ply tire and not merely a six-ply rated tire, and has a manufacturer's rating of 680 lbs. per tire at a reasonable rate of speed. The maximum weight that our equipment would display would not exceed 450 lbs. per tire. Over the past 11 years we have manufactured and sold approximately 4,100 units and to date have not experienced any problems.

Exhibit B illustrates the special construction of the walking beam assembly on which the tires are mounted.

Exhibits C and D illustrate the paver in its entirety and also show it being attached to a vehicle for transportation. I think we should clarify what we mean by mobility because of the towing assembly. The paver is designed so that it may be transported from one job to another by virtue to the towing assembly and rubber-tired undercarriage, therefore making it more flexible for contractors and municipalities to plan their jobs, etc., and is not intended as a vehicle for extended highway use inasmuch as the vehicle will be towed less than 10% of the time and in a small vicinity. We have two companies that supply our industrial tires for this equipment: General Tire and Rubber Company and Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company.

Mr. Berndt, we ask that you review the enclosure and consider the following requests: 1) To have our equipment and its components described therein to be classified as construction machinery, and 2) an opinion and/or waiver to be issued which allows the equipment to be used as it has in the past since this is the only type of tire that can be used for our equipment.

If you need additional information or technical data, please feel free to contact Mr. Jack Layton, president and general manager, Mr. John Newcomb, manufacturing manager and chief engineer, at (503) 85-4888.

I sincerely appreciate your courtesies when I talked to you on the phone and can assure you our company will be grateful for anything you might do to help expedite our request.

Earl C. Sievers Finance Manager

ID: nht76-2.30

DATE: 12/06/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Wesbar Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 28, 1976, asking several questions with respect to that portion of paragraph S4.4.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 which prohibits the optical combination of clearance and tail lamps. You have also expressed your concern, in a recent telephone conversation with Mr. Vinson of my staff, about the ACUTEK interpretation of October 22, 1976, to be discussed below.

The distinction between the hypothetical lamp in Question 2 of your letter of September 7, 1976, and the Acutek lamp is that there is no opaque barrier wall in the former, separating the tail lamp bulb and the clearance lamp bulb, while in the latter the barrier rises to the base of the bulb. Since Standard No. 108 does not require separate compartments (i.e., an opaque barrier) for tail lamps and clearance lamps, it is obvious that the prohibition against optical combination means that (a) a single bulb may not perform both functions and (b) a single bulb must not be perceived as performing both functions. This was the rationale behind Mr. Driver's advice to Acutek that the available data indicated "that when the tail lamp bulb [on the Acutek lamp] is activated independently from the clearance lamp bulb, and vice versa, there is no appreciable amount of incidental light emitted from the lens of the clearance lamp," and that "the amount of light 'spill' appears to be so small that it would not be interpreted (by a driver following the vehicle on which it is installed) as illuminating the lens of the tail lamp when operated in the clearance lamp mode, and vice versa."

If you apply this general principle to the questions you asked then I think you will have the answers. The principle is necessarily dependent upon the candlepower output of any lamp to which it is applied, a value not given in your questions. Thus, the principle cannot be quantified and the determination of the extent of light spill is necessarily subjective, and certification is dependent upon a manufacturer's good faith in attempting to achieve compliance.

After reviewing this matter I must admit that I am curious as to the safety rationale behind the prohibition. Paragraph S4.4.1 had its genesis in a similar provision in Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety regulations (49 CFR 393.22(b)(3), formerly 393.22(c)) and was adopted in conformance with it. The Society of Automotive Engineers, however, does not prohibit combining these lamps. If clearance lamps are mounted below 72 inches -- the maximum allowable mounting height for tail lamps -- it may be that they could be combined with tail lamps, without any detriment to safety, and at a saving to the consumer. Perhaps you would like to comment on this.

SINCERELY,

WESBAR CORPORATION

October 28, 1976 Frank Berndt

Acting Chief Counsel

U.S. Dept. of Transportation

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Refer: N40-30

1. Thank you for your October 7, 1976 response to our inquiries. Your answers have clarified several grey areas of various manufacturers interpretations of S 4.4.1 of DOT 108.

2. There is one further design on which we would ask for your interpretation in regard to the combination of clearance lamp and tail lamp in approximately the same cell.

3. Your response (paragraph 2 of your letter) to our question: "Can a clearance lamp and tail lamp be combined in a single compartment with no opaque barrier wall existing between the clearance lamp and tail lamp bulb?" was concise and direct but it left one consideration unanswered. Your reply was directed to a lamp which had one lens serving both functions and no opaque barrier between the tail lamp and clearance lamp bulbs respectively.

4. We now ask your interpretation of S 4.4.1 as it would apply to a combination lamp designed as follows:

1. Only a partial partition exists between the clearance lamp and tail lamp compartments.

2. There are separate lenses for clearance and tail lamp functions (though contiguous).

3. The tail lamp partially illuminates the clearance lamp compartment and lens.

4. The clearance lamp partially illuminates the tail lamp compartment and lens.

5. The turn signal filament, when flashing illuminates both clearance and tail light lenses and compartments.

5. Based on your interpretation contained in paragraph 2 of your letter, we believe this lamp would not be approved since the lamps designated for each separate function would illuminate the individual lenses of each function.

6. However, we would prefer not to accept our own interpretation of this design but rather have you give us an NHTSA official interpretation to the following questions:

a. Would a lamp with the design features described in paragraph 5 be approved under S 4.4.1?

b. Does, in fact, the clearance lamp have to be totally isolated in a separate compartment from the tail lamp so that no light from the tail lamp bulb illuminates the clearance lamp lens?

c. Does the fact that there are separate lenses, contiguous to one another, change your interpretation as given in paragraph 2 of your October 7, 1976 letter since both lenses would be illuminated when both or either lamp is in use and, therefore, considered combined optically?

7. For your study and consideration we submit the attached sketch and photos of a model depiciting the conditions outlined in paragraph 5 of this letter.

Your early response will be appreciated.

B. R. Weber Executive Vice President

SIDE VIEW SHOWING RELATIVE POSITION OF CLEARANCE LAMP & TAIL LAMP NOT COMPLETELY ISOLATED FROM ONE ANOTHER

(Graphics omitted)

(LACK OF A FULL DIVIDING WALL PERMITS THE TAIL LIGHT BULB TO ILLUMINATE PART OF THE CLEARANCE LAMP COMPARTMENT AND CONVERSITY, THE CLEARANCE BULB ILLUMINATES PART OF THE TAIL LIGHT COMPARTMENT

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 1985-03.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/18/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Kathryn L. Samuelson, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Kathryn L. Samuelson, Esq. Assistant City Attorney City of Champaign 102 North Neil Street Champaign, Illinois 61820

Dear Ms. Samuelson:

Thank you for your letter of June 4, 1985, to Mr. Gary Butler of our Region V office, which was forwarded to my office for reply. You asked whether Federal law requires safety belts to be installed end used in several types of vehicles. I understand from conversations between my staff and Mr. Butler that Your question is related to the provision of Illinois' belt use law which exempts a person operating "a motor vehicle which is not required to be equipped with seat safety belts under federal law" from the safety belt use requirement. I hope the following discussion is of assistance to you in your effort to ensure that the City of Champaign is in compliance with Illinois' safety belt use requirement. I believe that Illinois' law and your efforts can have an immediate and beneficial safety impact on the citizens of Champaign. I would encourage you to have all occupants of municipal vehicles wear their safety belts regardless of whether they are covered by your State's belt use requirement.

This agency has issued, under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, which requires the installation of occupant restraints, such as safety belts, in vehicles. Standard No. 208 requires only the installation of the restraints; it does not require their use. A copy of the standard is enclosed for your reference. I hope the following discussion explains how Standard No. 208 applies to each of the vehicles you mentioned.

You asked about fire trucks and public work trucks. Those vehicles would be governed by S4.2 or 4.3 of the standard, depending upon the gross vehicle weight rating of the truck. Police cars would be classified as passenger cars under our standard and currently would have to comply with the requirement of S4.1.2 of our standard.

The application of the standard to the remaining category of vehicles you asked about would depend upon their construction and use. All of our standards apply only to motor vehicles. The Vehicle Safety Act defines a motor vehicle as "any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails." (15 U.S.C. 1391(3))

In interpreting this definition, the agency has said that a vehicle which cannot exceed 20 mph and has an unusual configuration which sets it apart from the rest of the traffic is not a motor vehicle and thus does not have to comply with our standards, even if it uses the public roads. These vehicles, typically, are highway maintenance and construction equipment, lane stripers and other similar vehicles. Thus, if the snow plows, road graders and other specialized types of public work vehicles you asked about have a top speed that does not exceed 20 mph and have an unusual configuration, they would not be covered by Standard No. 208 However, if these vehicles are conventional trucks that use the public roads and have specialized work equipment mounted on them, then they would have to meet the occupant crash protection requirements set in Standard No. 208 for trucks.

If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosure

U.S. Department of Transportation

Subject: City of Champaign Request Formal Date: June 7, 1985 Opinion on Standard 208 as Relates to Municipal Vehicles

From: Donald A. Williamson Reply to Regional Administrator Attn. of: NHTSA, Region V, Homewood, IL

To: Jeffery R. Miller Chief Counsel, NOA-30 Washington, D.C.

The City of Champaign is concerned that its municipal vehicles comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208. As you know, the State of Illinois has a mandatory safety belt use law which goes into effect July 1, 1985. Apparently, the City would like to advise its employees to comply with the State law when in vehicles that are required to be equipped with safety belts.

Please review the attached letter and prepare the appropriate agency response. If additional information is needed, please contact me. I appreciate your attention to this request.

Donald A. Williamson

CITY OF CHAMPAIGN

June 4, 1985

Mr. Gary Butler Program Manager NHTSA 18209 Dixie Highway Homewood, Illinois 60430

RE: Seat Belt Use

Dear Mr. Butler:

After my conversation with you on May 20, 1985, Mr. Stavins, the City Attorney, asked that I write you and ask that you send us a written opinion in relation to certain types of municipal vehicles. We would appreciate a written opinion on whether or not federal law requires seat belts to be installed and used in the following types of vehicles:

1. Fire trucks 2. Squad cars 3. Snow plows 4. Road graders 5. Other specialized types of public work vehicles 6. Public works trucks

Your prompt attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated. Very truly yours, Kathryn L. Samuelson Assistant City Attorney KLS:eb

ID: 1985-03.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/12/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Rod Nash, P.E. -- Corporate Engineering, Collins Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Rod Nash, P.E. Corporate Engineering Collins Industries, Inc. P.O. Box 58 Hutchinson, KS 67504-0058

This responds to your May 20, 1985 letter to Mr. Francis Armstrong of the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Your letter has been referred to my office for reply.

You asked whether you are correct in certifying a van as a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV) if the van carries less than 10 passengers but has the lighting and identifying marks of a school bus. The answer to your question is yes.

I would like you to keep in mind that NHTSA has two sets of regulations, issued under different acts of Congress, which have a bearing on your situation. The first of these is the regulations for the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment, issued by us under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. The second set of regulations is the highway safety program standards issued by us under the Highway Safety Act of 1966. The highway safety program standards cover a wide range of subjects and are considered for Federal funding of state highway safety programs. The yellow paint and black markings of school buses are features of school bus safety covered by the program standard for pupil transportation safety.

We promulgated the following definition of a MPV, as found in 49 CFR S571.3, under the authority of the Vehicle Safety Act:

"Multipurpose passenger vehicle" means a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation.

You are thus correct in certifying a van as a MPV if it carries less than 11 persons, including the driver. This is the case even if the MPV has the yellow paint and black trim of a school bus. You must certify your MPV as meeting all motor vehicle safety standards applicable to MPV's. You may also voluntarily manufacture the MPV in compliance with the requirements of our school bus safety standards, as long as the vehicle continues to comply with our standards for MPV's.

New vans carrying 11 or more persons (i.e., 10 or more passengers) are "buses" under NHTSA's definition of a "bus." We define "bus" as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons" (49 CFR 5571.3). Regardless of how they are painted or marked, new buses that are sold for purposes that include carrying school children must be certified as meeting our school bus safety standards.

You should also note that the color and other identifying features of a school bus are aspects of school bus safety covered by Highway Safety Program Standard (HSPS) No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety. Individual states have chosen to adopt some or all of the highway safety program standards issued by NHTSA for their own highway safety programs. A state's implementation of HSPS No. 17 would affect the operation and identification of school vehicles to the extent of its implementation of the standard's recommendations. A copy of the standard is enclosed for your information.

Please contact me if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Mr. Francis Armstrong, Administrator National Highway Traffic & Safety Administration 400 7th St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Armstrong:

I am writing to request a letter of interpretation on the National Highway Traffic & Safety Administration position regarding the appropriate vehicle classification for a yellow van with warning lights but set up to carry less than 10 passengers. In Public Law 89-563, a school bus is defined as:

A passenger motor vehicle which is designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which the Secretary determines is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, pre-primary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools.

Part 571 says a school bus means:

A bus that is sold, or introduced in interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying student to and from school or related events, but does not include a bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation.

Since a bus is defined as a vehicle to carry 10 passengers, I understand the two definitions to be talking about the same type vehicle.

From time to time, we receive orders for our small school bus equipped with a handicapped lift and floor planning for 5 to 10 passengers. We have been calling this type vehicle a multipurpose passenger vehicle on its certification sticker. The yearly production of vehicles with this type seating is small. Typically, our small school buses have seating capacities from 12 to 20 passengers and are clearly school buses.

We would appreciate your referring this letter to the office of Chief Counsel for the correct interpretation. Specifically, the question centers on a vehicle that is painted yellow, has black horizontal stripes, red and yellow warning lights on each end, and has designated seating positions for 6 to 10 passengers.

Thank you for your attention to these questions.

Sincerely, Rod Nash, P.E. Corporate Engineering COLLINS INDUSTRIES, INC. /mw

ID: 1985-03.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/10/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable John G. Rowland -- House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Ms. Janet Tatro of Shelton, Connecticut, concerning our regulations for school bus lighting. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply. We regret the delay in our response. Your constituent was concerned that certain vans in Connecticut that are marked as carrying school children are not equipped with flashing school bus lights. Ms. Tatro suggested that such vans should be required to be equipped with the warning lights of school buses, so that motorist would be required under Connecticut law to stop their vehicles upon activation of the flashing lights. I appreciate this opportunity to respond to your questions and those of your constituent. Our agency has two separate sets of regulations, issued under different Acts of Congress, that apply to school bus lighting, but are applied in different ways. The first regulations, issued under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, are the safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment, sellers of new school buses must comply with all applicable Vehicle Safety Act regulations if they wish to sell their vehicles in this country. the second regulations, issued under the Highway Safety Act of 1966, provide guidelines to the States for their highway safety programs. One of these program standards provides recommended procedures for the operation of school vehicles. The Vehicle Safety Act requires any person selling a new "school bus" to ensure that the vehicle complies with our school bus safety standards. Under Federal law, a motor vehicle designed for 11 or more persons (including the driver) and sold for transporting students to and from school or related events is considered a "school bus." Since new vans that carry 11 or more persons are considered school buses if intended for school purposes, our school bus safety standards apply to those vehicles as well as to larger school buses. Under Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, all school buses must be equipped with flashing school bus warning lamps. If Ms. Tatro knows of instances in which noncomplying school buses may have been sold, she should notify NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, Room 6113, at the address given above. New vans that carry fewer than 11 persons are considered to be "multi-purpose passenger vehicles (MPV's)" under our regulations. Those vehicles may be used to carry school children, and must be certified as meeting the safety standards for MPV's. MPV's may also be voluntarily manufactured to meet the requirements of the school bus safety standards, as long as the vehicle continues to comply with our standards for MPV's. Since we do not regulate the use of warning lamps on MPV's, Connecticut may choose to require school bus warning lamps on its smaller vans as long as the supplemental lighting does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required for MPV's. I wish to emphasize that the motor vehicle safety standards apply only to the manufacture and sale of school buses, not to their operation. State law determines the operational requirements that vehicles must meet. Under the Highway Safety Act, we issued Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety (copy enclosed), which contains recommendations for the identification, operation, and maintenance of school vehicles. Under this guideline, States are expressly given the discretion to decide whether to require warning lamps on smaller school vehicles (e.g., MPVs) and whether to require that the lights on a school bus or an MPV be flashed when loading or unloading students. While our motor vehicle safety standards require a new school bus to be equipped with school bus warning lights, we cannot specify the circumstances in which the lights must be used. You asked how many States require that their buses flash their signal lamps when loading or unloading students. At this time, we are aware of 44 States that have such a requirement. Connecticut requires the actuation of signals at least 50 feet in advance of the place where children will be received or discharged. Connecticut State officials would be able to provide Ms. Tatro with additional information about the State's requirement for the use of school bus warning lamps. You also asked whether there have been any studies on the safety of school vans. In the mid-1970's, when NHTSA developed a new set of school bus safety standards, the agency evaluated the performance characteristics of van-type vehicles to determine the necessary requirements that would reduce the number of school bus fatalities and the severity of injuries. Since a van experiences different crash forces than a larger bus and differs substantially in design, our safety standards were developed to specify particular requirements for vans appropriate for the smaller type of vehicle. While the term "van" is frequently used, this agency classifies all vans as either "buses" or "MPVS," depending on their passenger capacity. Vans that carry 11 or more persons (driver included) are considered buses. Based on our assessment of the crashworthiness of those vehicles, the agency determined that school buses weighing 10,000 pounds or less must be equipped with safety belts for all occupant seating positions. School buses weighing more than 10,000 pounds must comply with comprehensive seating system requirements which provide equivalent high levels of passenger protection. If a van carries fewer than 11 persons, it is classified as an MPV and must be equipped with safety belts for all passengers, whether or not the vehicle is used for school purposes. I hope this information is helpful. While school buses have excellent safety records, NHTSA is committed to continuing its efforts to reduce school bus-related deaths and injuries on our nation's highways as much as possible. We appreciate the cooperation and input of concerned citizens like Ms. Tatro. Please feel free to contact this agency if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosures: Constituent's correspondence, HSPS 17

ID: 1985-03.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/05/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Houston N. Tuel, Jr., Esq -- Coder and Tuel

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Houston N. Tuel, Jr., Esq. Coder & Tuel Suite 172 8801 Folsom Boulevard Sacramento, California 95826

This responds to your letter of February 4, 1985, inquiring about the applicability of 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification, and 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Reports, to your client, Stockton Dodge. I regret the delay in our response.

You asked whether Stockton Dodge, as a vehicle alterer, would be considered a manufacturer under the statutory definition of "manufacturer" in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 1391, et seq. (the Act). Based on the information given, the answer is yes.

You state that Stockton Dodge purchases previously certified Dodge vans from Chrysler Corporation and converts them into school buses which are intended to be sold directly to school districts. The modifications made by your client include adding seats, strengthening the roof structure, and adding required warning lights and emergency equipment. You state that Stockton Dodge will certify the altered vehicles according to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 567.7, as complying with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses.

Stockton Dodge sent a letter to the Administrator, dated March 7, 1985, stating that, beginning February 15, 1985, its school bus division would become a final-stage manufacturer. Stockton Dodge stated that they would purchase Dodge B350 vans from Chrysler Corporation with school bus options and would add equipment to alter these vehicles to Type 2 school buses, weighing under 10,000 GVWR. Under our regulations, your client is not considered a final-stage manufacturer because the definition of final-stage manufacturer in 49 CFR Part 568 applies to a person who finishes an incomplete vehicle.

This agency considers Stockton Dodge an alterer of previously certified motor vehicles, as indicated in your letter, who must comply with the certification requirements of 49 CFR 567.7. Your client's alterations change the vehicle type from a multipurpose van to a school bus and affect components necessary for compliance with safety standards. For these reasons, Stockton Dodge is a manufacturer within the meaning of the Act, as stated above. Stockton Dodge's letter dated March 7, 1985, contains the information required to be submitted under 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. The agency will consider this letter as the manufacturer identification for Stockton Dodge as an alterer.

This agency has also determined that an alterer is considered a manufacturer for the purposes of notification and recall for defects or noncompliance under the Act and is subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Reports.

Please note that, under paragraph S4.1 of Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number--Basic Requirements (VIN), Stockton Dodge, as the alterer, should use the VIN assigned by Chrysler Corporation, the original manufacturer of the vehicles.

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

Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

February 4, 1985 Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel's Office National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration 400 7th Street, Room 5219 S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Manufacturer Reporting Requirements

Dear Mr. Berndt:

On behalf of our client, Stockton Dodge, our firm requests your opinion whether Stockton Dodge must comply with the manufacturer identification requirements of Part 566 of 49 CFR and the defect and noncompliance reporting requirements of Part 573 of 49 CFR.

Stockton Dodge purchases Dodge vans from Chrysler that are safety certified and specially designed to be converted into small buses. Stockton Dodge then modifies the vans by adding seats, placing additional structural supports in the roof, and by adding all required warning lights and emergency equipment as required by both the federal and California state standards. The result is a small school bus.

Upon modification, Stockton Dodge will affix certification labels to the vehicles as altered, pursuant to Section 567.7 or Section 568.7 of 49 CFR.

Stockton Dodge then intends to sell the school buses directly to school districts.

It appears to us that a determination as to whether Stockton Dodge is subject to the manufacturer's identification reporting requirements depends on whether Stockton Dodge qualifies as a "manufacturer" under 15 U.S.C. 1391(5). In other words, is one who alters a vehicle already certified by its "final stage manufacturer" also considered a "manufacturer", or is he merely an "alterer" subject to the requirements of Section 567.7 and 568.7 of 49 CFR?

Please send your response to the above address. If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at the above telephone number. Your help in clarifying this matter will be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours, Houston N. Tuel, Jr. HNT:kh March 7, 1985

Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Adm. 400 Seventh St. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Please be advised that beginning February 15, 1985, the school Bus Division of Stockton Dodge Inc., a Delaware Corporation, will become a final stage manufacturer.

We will be purchasing Dodge B350 Vans from Chrysler Motor Corp. with all appropriate School Bus options, and then adding equipment to alter same to a mini School Bus, type 2, under 10,000 G V W.

Corporate Name: Stockton Dodge Inc. Residence Address: 540 N. Hunter St. Stockton, Ca. 95201

ID: 86-1.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/12/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Jack H. McDaniel, Jr. -- President, Trim Plus

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Jack H. McDaniel, Jr. President Trim Plus P.O. Box 490811 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33349

This is in reply to your letters of November 18, 1985, and January 9, 1986, to the former Chief Counsel of this agency, Jeffrey Miller, asking questions about the relationship of the center high-mounted stop lamp provisions of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to the installation of deck-mounted luggage racks.

You have stated that you install accessories on new motor vehicles before their delivery by their dealers. You have asked whether deck-mounted racks that have cross bars violate the safety standards? It is not possible to give a definitive answer. When a passenger car leaves the factory, its center high-mounted stop lamp must meet certain specified minimum design photometrics at certain test points, and be installed so that it has a signal visible to the rear through a horizontal angle from 45 degrees to the left to 45 degrees to the right of the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. It must continue to meet these requirements at the time of delivery to the first purchaser, even if a deck rack has been installed. If the rack prevents the lamp from meeting its photometric output at any test point, the standard does allow a supplementary center high-mounted stop lamp to be added, provided that it meets all applicable photometrics. If no such lamp is added, and the rack affects the photometric compliance of the lamp, we would view the installer (if a manufacturer, distributor, dealer of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, or a motor vehicle repair business) as a possible violator of 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A) which forbids those commercial entities from rendering partially inoperative equipment that is installed in accordance with a Federal safety standard.

You have also asked whether a deck-mounted rack loaded with luggage would cause a violation. The answer is no; compliance with Standard No. 108 is determined without luggage in place, even if the lamp would be blocked when the rack is in use.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones

Chief Counsel

January 9, 1986

Mr. Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Councel U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Miller:

Mine is a company specializing in the sales and installation of automotive trim accessories with a clientele essentially being the franchised dealers of new American made automobiles.

Recently there has been some confusion among myself customers, and colleagues regarding one of the new motor vehicle safety standards which, I understand, is number 108 involving the center high-mounted stop lamp. Since one of the specialties of my company is the installation of rear deck-mounted luggage racks on new cars, I was wondering if you would give me some information as to how the new safety standards might infect this. Here is what I am particularly concerned about.

1. Would installing a rear deck-mounted luggage rack that has a cross bar on a 1986 automobile for a dealer cause a violation of the center high-mounted stop lamp provision of the new safety standard?

2. It seems to me that on most cars a deck-mounted luggage rack can be positioned so that the center high- mounted stop lamp can still be clearly seen from the rear. Are there any provisions of the new safety standards that I should know about that would help insure prevention a violation?

3. Would a deck-mounted rack loaded with luggage cause a violation?

Mr. Miller, this does make the second of my requests to your department for this information that I have yet to receive. I know how busy you department must be, but please let me hear from you at your earliest convenience. I shall await your reply with great interest, as it will make considerable difference in my sales and operation.

Respectfully, Jack McDaniel, President

November 18, 1985

Mr. Jefferey R. Miller Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Miller:

Ours is a company specializing in the installation of automotive trim accessories. Most of our services are to the franchised dealers of the major automobile makers, installing accessories on their pre-delivered cars.

Recently there has been some confusion among myself and colleagues regarding the new safety standards for 1986 vehicles concerning the center high-mounted stop lamps which, I have been told, is Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Since some of my orders are for installing deck-mounted luggage racks with cross bars on 1986 vehicles, I wonder if you could give me some information about how the new safety standards might affect this. I will list the things I am particularly concerned about.

1. Will deck-mounted racks that have cross bars violate the new safety standards? It seems to me that many racks can be mounted and positioned so that the high-mounted stop lamp is still clearly visible from the rear. How can we determine if one would cause a violation?

2. Would a deck-mounted rack loaded with luggage cause a violation?

I shall await your answers with great interest, Mr. Miller. Many thanks for any information you can give me. May I please here from you as soon as possible?

Respectfully,

Jack H. McDaniel, Jr. President

ID: 86-4.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/31/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: K.A. Ziomek -- Sales Representative, TRW Vehicle Safety Systems Division

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 7/27/89 letter from Stephen P. Wood to Robert V. Potter (Std. 213). 3/17/89 letter from Robert V. Potter to NHTSA

TEXT:

Ms. K.A. Zionek Sales Representative TRW Vehicle Safety Systems Division 61166 Van Dyke Washington, MI 48094

Dear Ms. Ziomek:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR 5571.213). Specifically, you asked about the effects of an amendment that becomes effective August 12, 1986. I will address your questions in the order they were presented in your letter.

First, you stated that your company is the manufacturer of a child restraint called the "Child Love Seat." A final rule published February 13, 1986 (51 FR 5335) amends Standard No. 213 to require all child seats equipped with a tether strap to pass the 30 mph test without attaching the tether strap. This requirement becomes effective August 12, 1986. Your letter states that you will stop manufacturing the Child Love Seat on August 12 as a result of this amendment. You asked whether your distributors could continue to sell Child Love Seats after August 12, 1986. The answer is yes.

In the preamble to the February 13, 1986 final rule, NHTSA stated the following:

The new requirement would apply only to child seats manufactured after the effective date of this rule. Child seat; manufactured before the effective date of this rule may be sold even if their tether strap must be attached to pass the 30 mph test. Hence, the agency does not see any reason for child seat dealers to be confused by this rule (51 FR 5337).

In accordance with this language, your dealers and distributors may continue to sell Child Love Seats manufactured before August 12, 1986, until the inventories are depleted, even if these sales occur on or after August 12, 1986.

Your second question was which party would bear the liability for such sales. Since there is no violation of our requirements for selling Child Love Seats manufactured before August 12, 1986, as explained above there is no liability to be borne by any party, unless, of course, the seats do not comply with the pre-August 12 version of the standard.

Your third question was how long TRW must continue to have replacement parts available for the Child Love Seat. There is no requirement in Standard No. 213 or any of our other regulations that child restraint manufacturers make replacement parts available for any child restraint. Since, your company was never required to make replacement parts available, it is free to stop offering replacement parts for Child Love Seats whenever you choose.

You should, however, be aware of your statutory responsibility to remedy any safety-related defects or noncompliances with the requirements of Standard No. 213. If either your company or this agency determines that the Child Love Seat contains a safety-related defect or fails to comply with Standard No. 213, section 154 (a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1414 (a)(l)) requires you to remedy the defect or noncompliance without charge to the purchaser. Section 154 (a)(2)(B) specifies that such remedy shall consist of either:

(1) Repairing the Child Love Seats so that they no longer have the defect or failure to comply; or

(2) Replacing the Child Love Seats with an identical or reasonably equivalent child restraint that does not have such defect or failure to comply.

Section 154 (a)(4) limits your obligation to remedy without charge to those Child Love Seats purchased by the first purchaser not more than 8 years before the determination is safe that those products contain a safety-related defect or failure to comply with Standard No. 213.

If a determination of a safety-related defect or noncompliance were made with respect to the Child Love Seats, your company's ability to exercise its statutory right to repair, rather than replace, such seats would be affected by the availability of replacement parts with which to make such repairs. You may wish to consider this when deciding how long your company will continue to have replacement parts available for Child Love Seats.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

June 2, 1985

Legal Office Office of Vehicle Safety Standards NHSTA 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington D.C. 20590

Dear Sirs:

TRW Vehicle Safety Systems Division is the manufacturer of the Child Love Seat and per your recent ruling we will discontinue the manufacturing of this seat on August 12, 1986.

TRW distributes the Child Love Seat through Century Products in the D.S. and Alkot Industries is Canada. We also distribute the Child Love Seat through GM, Honda, Accura, Ford of Canada, AMC and Chrysler.

TRW is concerned that after August 12, 1986 are our distributors able to sell this product? (delete their inventory) Where is the liability placed? How long must TRW continue to have replacement parts?

Any assistance in answering or other pertinent information relating to the above questions are appreciated and I look forward to your earliest response.

Thanking you in advance.

Sincerely,

R. A. Ziomek Sales Representative

KAZ/lw