ID: aiam4309

Dear Mr. Takechi: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Standar No. 101, *Controls and Displays.* Your questions are responded to below.; By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.; Your first question concerns the identification requirements for master lighting switch. You stated your belief that if the headlamps and tail lamps are controlled by the master lighting switch, the switch is not required to be marked with any symbol other than that specified in Standard No. 101 for the master lighting switch. You also stated your belief that the manufacturer has an option to use other symbols in addition to that symbol. As discussed below, your understanding is correct.; Section S5.2.1(a) states: >>>Except as specified in S5.2.1(b), any hand- operated control liste in column 1 of Table 1 that has a symbol designated for it in column 3 of that table shall be identified by either the symbol designated column 3 (or symbol substantially similar in form to that shown in column 3) or the word or abbreviation shown in column 2 of that table.... Words or symbols in addition to the required symbol, word or abbreviation may be used at the manufacturer's discretion for the purpose of clarity....<<<; Column 3 of Table 1 designates the symbol shown in your letter for th master light switch. Also, footnote 2 of the Table states that separate identification is not required for headlamps and tail lamps if they are controlled by a master lighting switch. Thus, the master lighting switch symbol is sufficient identification under Standard No. 101 for the control identified in your letter.; A drawing provided with your letter shows various positions of th master lighting switch identified by a word or symbols, which are provided in addition to the master lighting switch symbol. As indicated in the above-quoted text, section S5.2.1(a) permits words or symbols in addition to the required symbol or word, for purposes of clarity.; Your second question concerns identification requirements for an uppe beam control. You stated that you believe no symbol is required for the upper beam control if it is on the turn signal lever, and that it is at the manufacturer's option to use a symbol.; Standard No. 101 does not specify any identification requirements fo an upper beam control, regardless of whether it is on the turn signal lever. Thus, the manufacturer has the option of deciding whether to identify the control and, if so, how to identify it. We note that the symbol you plan to use for future models is the same as designated in Standard No. 101 for the highbeam (upper beam) telltale. Thus, your planned approach appears desirable in minimizing the number of symbol's drivers must familiarize themselves with for the same function.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: nht91-2.1

DATE: February 26, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Lennard S. Loewentritt -- Deputy Associate General Counsel, Personal Property Division, General Services Administration

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-7-90 from Lennard S. Loewentritt to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 5432)

TEXT:

This responds to your November 7, 1990 letter requesting further clarification with regard to my August 23, 1990 letter to you. 49 CFR S571.7(c) provides that Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply "to a vehicle or item of equipment manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications. In my August letter, I stated that school buses purchased by the General Services Administration (GSA) for the sole use of the Army would be considered to fall within this exception. This interpretation was based on the assumption that GSA acts as a purchasing agent for the Army.

In your recent letter, you stated that this assumption was erroneous. While GSA's Automotive center does act as a purchasing agent for some agencies, the vehicles in question would be purchased for the GSA'S Interagency Fleet Management System (IFMS). Vehicles in the IFMS "are assigned on an indefinite basis to agencies that have had their fleets consolidated into the IFMS." You stated that the Army has consolidated their nontactical vehicles into the IFMS.

In this case then, the GSA would be purchasing buses which are intended for "indefinite assignment to and sole use by the Army for the purpose of transporting troops as well as transporting military dependents to and from school." You stated that these vehicles would be manufactured in conformity with contractual specifications "which reflect the requirements of the Federal Motor Vehicle safety standards for buses rather than school bus specifications." Given this clarification of GSA's role, you again asked if these buses would fall within the exception in 49 CFR 571.7(c).

The answer to your question would be yes, if the purchase contract specifies that the buses should not be certified as school buses in order to serve the needs of the Armed Forces. In these circumstances, we see no meaningful difference between a sale directly to an element of the Armed Forces and a sale to GSA's IFMS intended for exclusive and indefinite assignment to the Army. In announcing this conclusion, I want to make several points. In the interest of safety, I strongly recommend that the contract specify compliance with the substantive provisions of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards relating to school buses, except insofar as they are actually inconsistent with the intended use of the bus. Also, if reassignment of these buses to another agency is ever contemplated, I would appreciate your undertaking to ensure that they would only be used for transporting adults.

I hope this response is helpful. Please let me know if you have any further questions or need any additional information.

ID: 003066drn

Ron Love, State Director of Pupil Transportation

Delaware Department of Education

The Townsend Building

P. O. Box 1402

Dover, DE 19903-1402

Dear Mr. Love:

This responds to your letter and telephone conversations with agency staff in this office and in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations (NHTSAs) Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance about the sale, for pupil transportation, of a new vehicle whose seating capacity you believe may have been reduced from that of a bus (seating 11 persons or more).

As to your general inquiry, if a buss seating capacity were permanently reduced to less than 11 before the vehicles sale, the vehicle would no longer be a "bus" and thus would not be subject to our school bus standards. The modified vehicle would instead be considered a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV). While a dealer may sell or lease a new MPV to a school (provided there are no local regulations that would prohibit the sale), the entity altering the vehicle from a bus to an MPV must certify the vehicle as an MPV and ensure that it complies with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that apply to MPVs. I have enclosed a copy of an April 2, 1996, letter to Sgt. Stephan C. Turner that provides a helpful discussion of this issue.

As to the particular vehicle you ask about, information available to our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) has indicated that the van was originally manufactured as a multipurpose passenger vehicle. According to this information, the vehicles classification had not been changed from a bus to an MPV. Thus, the vehicle, as originally manufactured, would have had to have been certified as meeting the FMVSSs that apply to MPVs.

If you have further questions about NHTSAs school bus laws, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Questions you might have about the van you saw may be directed to Mr. James Jones, OVSC, at (202) 366-5294.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman

Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:VSA#571.3

d.4/11/03

ID: nht74-5.14

DATE: 02/26/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 19, 1973, asking whether Blue Bird may use the manufacturing date of incomplete vehicles it manufactures, to be completed at a later time, as the date by which conformity to applicable safety standards is to be determined. You indicate that Blue Bird manufactures both incomplete and complete vehicles.

The Certification and Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages regulations (49 CFR Parts, 567, 568) allow only final-stage manufacturers to certify conformity to applicable standards as of the manufacture date of an "incomplete vehicle." A person who manufactures the entire vehicle, including the chassis, is not a final-stage manufacturer within the intent of the regulation, and such a vehicle must be certified as of the date of its completion.

Part 568 clearly intends that multistage vehicles will be manufactured by more than one party. As your letter points out, the documentation required by Part 568 is unnecessary when only one manufacturer is involved. Moreover, the justification in the regulations for allowing a final-stage manufacturer to utilize the manufacture date of the incomplete vehicle is based partially on the fact that he has no control over the configuration of the incomplete vehicle, and that the incomplete vehicle manufacturer has no control over when and how the vehicle is completed. This justification does not exist when a single party builds the entire vehicle.

To permit a manufacturer of a complete vehicle to choose a date other than the completion date for purposes of conformity would present this agency with serious enforcement problems.

Which standards would apply would depend on how "separate" were a single company's manufacturing operations. Due to the endless possibilities that may arise in this regard, it is difficult to envision fair and objective criteria by which this decision could be made. Finally, providing the relief you request would allow a manufacturer to avoid compliance with a forthcoming standard by manufacturing large numbers of incomplete vehicles for completion by him at a later time.

You should note that the legal status of Parts 567 and 568 is unclear, due to the recent Court decisions in the Rex Chainbelt case. You will encounter no problems, however, by continuing to follow the regulations until further agency action is taken.

ID: nht87-3.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: OCTOBER 8, 1987

FROM: WES SPRUNK -- SAF-TEE SIPING & GROOVING INC.

TO: ERIKA JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: DECEMBER 30, 1988 LETTER FROM JONES TO SPRUNK, BROCHURES ON TIRE SIPING, 1978 NSC WINTER TEST REPORT, AUGUST 19, 1986 LETTER FROM KEIL TO SPRUNK, ARTICLE FROM AUGUST 1986 ISSUE OF "SCHOOL BUSINESS AFFAIRS," ARTICLE ENTITLED "SLASHING TIRES FOR SAFETY AND SAVINGS" FROM DECEMBER 1984 "NATIONAL SCHOOL BUS REPORT," MARCH 20, 1985 LETTER FROM GIFFORD TO SPRUNK, OCTOBER 15, 1982 LETTER FROM PALMER TO MARCY MANUFACTURING, AND APRIL 1983 AND APRIL 1984 ARTICLES FROM "GW SAFETY TALK"

TEXT: I have had a phone conversation with Ed Clancy concerning some problems that have arisen in reference to my product - with clarification from the National Highway Traffic Association.

I spoke, first of all, with Neil Thomas of the Federal Highway Administration and, later, with Jim Birtell, Head Engineer; they informed me that there was no problem with their department concerning siping tires in reference to the Federal Highway Admini stration. But, there was some question with a possible customer of mine with D.O.T.

For that reason, I would like to explain siping because, at this point, it is referred to in the D.O.T. Regulations in the same reference as grooving. We manufacturer and distribute both siping and grooving machines and I would like to clarify our posit ion and the difference in the two operations.

Grooving is a process of removing rubber from the tire to give it an additional space for water release. We sell grooving machines mainly to the metro bus companies who lease their tires and have considerable undertread.

Siping is a process of cross cutting the tread, never deeper than the original tread depth of the tire; and in most cases, 1/32" less, with a fine knife-either four of five cuts to the inch-that does not remove rubber. We have people siping tires on tru cks, buses, and passenger with excellent results. But, we have had some government agencies that want more clarification from your department.

I have enclosed for you a brochure on our siping machine and several testimonials from customers concerning their experience with siping so that you can better understand the process and the benefits derived thereform. In the cross cutting of the tread, the benefits are that it allows the tread to interact with the road and have the edges grap the road for better traction. It also allows for the tread components to open up enough to allow air to get into the tread and this helps with the increase in w ear by cooling the tread of the tire.

What I need to know from you is if there is any possible problem with the siping of new, used, truck, passenger, or light duty tires, assuming the siping is done as I stated above, with D.O.T. Regulations

Enc.

ID: aiam3546

Dear Mr. Bingham: This responds to your letter of January 5, 1982, concerning Standar No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*. You are correct that my letter of June 1, 1981, should have referred to S5.1(d) rather than S5.2(d). Likewise, I assume that where you have referred to sections 4.1(d), (e), and (f) in your letter, you mean sections 4.2(d), (e), and (f).; My letter of June 1, 1981, was not meant as a definitive statement o what specific action the agency intends to take on Standard No. 209, but rather to acknowledge that the standard's provision on abrasion needs modification. The notice of proposed rulemaking for this action will allow you and other interested parties to comment on what precise changes you think should be made to the standard. I am placing a copy of your letter with its current suggestions in the public docket.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3544

Dear Mr. Bingham: This responds to your letter of January 5, 1982, concerning Standar No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*. You are correct that my letter of June 1, 1981, should have referred to S5.1(d) rather than S5.2(d). Likewise, I assume that where you have referred to sections 4.1(d), (e), and (f) in your letter, you mean sections 4.2(d), (e), and (f).; My letter of June 1, 1981, was not meant as a definitive statement o what specific action the agency intends to take on Standard No. 209, but rather to acknowledge that the standard's provision on abrasion needs modification. The notice of proposed rulemaking for this action will allow you and other interested parties to comment on what precise changes you think should be made to the standard. I am placing a copy of your letter with its current suggestions in the public docket.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: nht93-2.27

DATE: March 25, 1993

FROM: Brett J. Higgins

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Council's Office, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-26-93 from John Womack to Brett J. Higgins (Std. 208)

TEXT: I am interested in selling a special clamp that is applied to the shoulder strap of a seatbelt as an after-market item. The purpose of this clamp is to allow for slack in the shoulder harness section of a seatbelt thus allowing it to be worn more comfortably.

My first concern has been to find out if this item would be legal to sell and use in the United States. I contacted the Department of Transportation in Washington D.C. and spoke with Mr. Mark Levine in the seatbelt division. He informed me that to his knowledge there are no legal restrictions on selling such an item. He did, however, recommend that I contact you and ask for your advice in this matter.

If you have any information that might be helpful to me, I would greatly appreciate it if you would contact me by letter. If you would prefer to contact me by telephone, I can be reached at (714) 963-3721,

I thank you in advance for any assistance you may offer.

ID: 1985-04.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/26/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Charles Pekow --Editor, Day Care USA

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Charles Pekow Editor, Day Care USA 4550 Montgomery Avenue Suite 700-N Bethesda, MD 20814

This is in further response to your July 23, 1985 telephone call to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration asking whether a Head Start facility is considered a "school" for purposes of determining the applicability of our school bus safety standards. As Ms. Hom informed you, the answer is yes.

Enclosed are copies of two letters from this office addressing this " question. Our December 21, 1977 letter to Mr. James Tydings explains that Head Start facilities are preprimary schools within the scope of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (as amended by the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974). We have also enclosed a May 10, 1982 letter to Mr. Martin Chauvin of the New York State Department of Transportation. You might be interested in the discussion in the Chauvin letter that distinguishes day care centers from Head Start facilities.

I understand that you might be contacting us with further questions regarding our school bus safety standards. We will be happy to assist you.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Assistant Chief Counsel for Rulemaking

Enclosures

NOA-30

Mr. James Tydings Thomas Built Buses, Inc. 1408 Courtesy Road P. O. Box 2450 High Point, North Carolina 27261

Dear Mr. Tydings:

This responds to your November 11, 1977, letter asking whether Head Start facilities are considered preprimary schools for purposes of applying the Federal school bus safety standards.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has determined that these facilities are primarily involved with the education of preprimary school children. Thus, the buses used to transport children to and from the Head Start facilities are considered school buses under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (as amended by the Motor Vehicle and School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974) and must meet all Federal school bus safety standards. Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

ID: nht94-2.33

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 12, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Adam A. Freund -- Manager, Testing Services, Standards Testing Laboratories, Inc. (Massillon, OH)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/10/94 from Adam A. Freund to Walter Myers (OCC 9556)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter addressed to the attention of Walter Myers of my staff in which you asked whether Table II of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars, contains certain errors.

You pointed out in your letter that Table I of FMVSS 119 specifies a plunger diameter of 5/16 inch for motorcycles, and 3/4 inch for 12-inch or smaller rims other than motorcycles. Table II, on the other hand, leaves blank the plunger diameter space, in the motorcycle column, but lists 5/16 inch plunger diameter in the 12-inch or smaller rim column. You indicated your belief that the inconsistency is due to a typographical error in those columns of Table II and asked us to confirm your interpretation.

Your observation is correct. A November 13, 1973 rule adopting Tables I and II (38 FR 31299) (copy enclosed) specifies the 5/16-inch diameter plunger for motorcycle tires, and the 3/4-inch diameter plunger for 12-inch or smaller tires and 17.5- inch or smaller light truck tubeless tires. Accordingly, the plunger diameter for the motorcycle column in Table II should read 5/16. Similarly, the 12-inch or smaller column in the current Table II is in error in specifying a plunger diameter of 5/16 inch. Th e correct plunger diameter for that column in Table II should be 3/4 inch to correspond with the plunger diameter specified for 12-inch or smaller rims in Table I.

Thank you for bringing this error to our attention. The agency will issue a correction to avoid any further confusion.