ID: 77-3.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/29/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: State of New Jersey

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 28, 1977, to Mr. Vinson of this office, asking for our comments on the flashing of ambulance headlamps for signaling purposes. You enclosed a copy of a Bulletin dated June 27, 1977, that New Jersey recently sent to its Inspection Stations advising rejection of ambulances equipped with headlamp flashing devices.

Paragraph S4.6(b) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, requires that lamps other than turn signals, hazard warning signals, and school bus warning signals be steady-burning in use, "except that means may be provided to [automatically] flash headlamps . . . for signaling purposes." The purpose of the exception was to allow continued use of automatic flashing devices in jurisdictions where it was permitted when the standard was adopted, for without the exception manufacture and sale of vehicles so equipped would have violated the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The exception provided by S4.6(b) has a preemptive effect only in that a State cannot forbid the sale and registration of a vehicle equipped with a flashing device, but there is no restriction on a State's authority to forbid the use of such mechanisms when it deems it in the interests of traffic safety to do so.

Thus, we have no objection to New Jersey's Bulletin of June 27, 1977.

SINCERELY,

State of New Jersey DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES

June 28, 1977

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

Dear Mr. Vinson:

This letter is written in connection with our recent phone conversation concerning the flashing of headlamps for signaling purposes as permitted under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 108.

As a matter of interest we are enclosing a copy of a Bulletin recently sent to our Inspection Stations concerning the flashing of headlamps for emergency warning purposes.

Your comments on this subject would be appreciated.

John A. McLaine, Chief Automotive Engineering Standards

VEHICLE INSPECTION BUREAU

STATE OF NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES

BUREAU OF VEHICLE INSPECTION ADMINISTRATIVE NOTIFICATION

DATE ISSUED: June 27, 1977

DATE EFFECTIVE: Immediately

DISTRIBUTION: Stations

STANDARD PROCEDURES:

OPERATIONS ORDER:

BULLETIN: Stations

SUBJECT: FLASHING OF MOTOR VEHICLE HEADLAMPS

ISSUED BY: Ass't. Chief

APPROVED BY: Chief, Auto. Eng. Stds.

We understand that some new ambulances are being sold in New Jersey equipped with a device which is activated when the ambulance is on an emergency trip and which causes the headlamps to flash continuously. An ambulance equipped with such a device should be rejected for the reasons given below.

New Jersey law prohibits flashing lamps on motor vehicles except as a means of indicating a left or right turn, or for hazard warning signals, or school bus warning lamps, or emergency warning lamps used on authorized emergency vehicles.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 states that means may be provided to flash headlamps and side marker lamps for signaling purposes. We also have to permit this but we do not think that Federal Standard 108 was intended to permit a new motor vehicle sold in the United States to be equipped with a device which will flash the headlamps for emergency warning purposes.

Motor vehicle headlamps are manufactured to produce the amount of light required to properly illuminate the road ahead. When headlamps are flashing for signaling purposes the flashing lasts for only a few seconds and does not greatly reduce the amount of illumination provided by the headlamps. However, when headlamps are flashing continously for emergency warning purposes the amount of illumination provided by the headlamps can be reduced below the amount of light required by the Standards of the Society of Automotive Engineers.

It is recognized that emergency warning lamps of some type are needed on ambulances and a permit to equip an ambulance with approved type flashing red emergency warning lamps can be obtained from the Enforcement Bureau in the Division of Motor Vehicles. An approved type flashing red emergency warning lamp is designed for continous flashing and is placed on our approval list after we receive a report from a recognized independent testing laboratory showing that the lamp meets Society of Automotive Engineers Standard J595b or SAE Recommended Practice J845. It should also be pointed out that an ambulance using a siren is required to display at least one red lamp visible at least 500 feet to the front of the vehicle.

In case of an accident involving an ambulance using flashing headlamps for emergency warning purposes there could be a legal problem because headlamps are not designed or approved for this purpose. In addition, when improper flashing lights are used there is confusion on the part of motorists who are required to react to these lights on the highways.

The Division's policy is to encourage uniformity in the use of recognized emergency vehicle warning lamps. Please explain this policy to any emergency vehicle operators who question our disapproval of the flashing headlamps.

ID: 1985-01.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/28/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Jerry D. Williams -- Senior Vice President, American Transportation Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Jerry D. Williams Senior Vice President American Transportation Corporation Highway 65 South Conway, Arkansas 72032

This is in further response to your December 12, 1984 letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning our definition of a school bus. Your specific question asked, "Are vehicles which are built to carry ten school aged passengers or less, and which are used for school or related functions, considered by NHTSA to be school buses or multipurpose passenger vehicles?" As explained below, a vehicle carrying 11 or more persons (i.e., 10 children and a driver) to and from school or related events would be considered a school bus. A vehicle carrying 10 or less persons would be a multipurpose passenger vehicle.

Under the definitions section of our Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (49 CFR Part 571.3), vehicles carrying 11 or more persons which are sold for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events are "school buses." Under our regulations, a vehicle which is designed to carry less than 11 persons would considered a multipurpose passenger vehicle. Such a vehicle would be certified as complying with the safety standards applicable to multipurpose passenger vehicles.

Ms. Deirdre Hom of my staff informed your associate, Mr. Joe Clark, of the above in a telephone call on December 14, 1984. This letter confirms the information given to Mr. Clark in that conversation.

If you have any further questions, do not hesitate to contact my office.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel December 12, 1984

Mr. Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Adm. 407 Street S.W. , Room 5219 Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sir:

We, as a manufacturer school bus bodies, have for some time now been operating with the understanding that vehicles built to transport ten (10) passengers or less came under the vehicle classification designated as a multi-purpose vehicle. For this reason, we have refrained from building school bus bodies with capacities of ten passengers or less. (Please see the attached bulletin we published on this matter.)

It is recently been brought to our attention that this interpretation, which we are recently following, is not a shared practice by every manufacturer. Although we do not have actual verification of the fact, we understand NHTSA has advised some bus body manufacturers that the multi-purpose vehicle definition does not serve the intent of the public law, specifically as it relates to the transportation of ten school aged passengers or less.

We, therefore, wish to have clarification of this matter and specially to the question: Are vehicles which are built to carry ten school aged passengers or less, and which are used for school or related functions, considered by NHTSA to be school buses or multi-purpose vehicles?

We have a bid pending for several units and would appreciate your telex response by Friday, December 14, 1984. I am afraid we will lose this bid unless we can respond positively in the same manner is our competitors have responded.

Sincerely,

Jerry D. Williams Senior Vice President Marketing

JDW:jj

Attachment

TO: All AmTran Dealers FROM: Joe Clark, National Sales Manager

DATE: March 25, 1983

SUBJECT: Minimum Capacity Ratings for School Use Vanguard and Minuteman Model Bus Bodies

In order to certify a Vanguard or a Minuteman model bus body as a school bus, we must observe the federal minimum passenger capacity rating which is now set at ten (10) passengers. This minimum passenger rating does not include the driver. In the case of a lift-equipped bus, the passenger rating would translate to two (2) wheelchair passengers and eight (8) passengers seated in the fixed seating area.

For your information, if a Vanguard or Minuteman order is requested with a rating less than ten (10) passengers we must certify the bus to what is know as a multi-purpose vehicle standard. To meet this standard, other federal standards come into effect which are very stringent and extremely expensive to comply with. For this reason, we request your cooperation in always observing the minimum passenger capacity criteria of ten (10) passengers.

JCC/jj

ID: nht87-2.96

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/18/87 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: JAMES R. THOMPSON -- VICE PRESIDENT OF MARKETING, DUTCHER MOTORS, INC.

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: This letter responds to your inquiry concerning classifying a vehicle, the "TransiTaxi," which your company manufactures. You inform us that although in 1985 you classified this vehicle as a bus, you now have a question whether this is a proper classifi cation. You state that you use Ford truck components in your vehicle design, and describe your vehicle as larger than the Ford Bronco.

You state further that if you must classify this vehicle as a "passenger car," you would find it "financially impossible to go through the crash-testing procedures required." You ask us to consider issuing either an interpretation or an exemption, cite y our maximum annual production of only 500 units as a factor, and offer to bring a "demonstrator" vehicle to Washington. You enclose specifications with your correspondence that say the standard "TransiTaxi" seats a maximum of seven passengers.

First, please understand that under our certification requirements (49 CFR 567) for the vehicle safety standards, a manufacturer initially determines a vehicle's type using the definitions set out in 49 CFR @ 571.3, and certifies that the motor vehicle c omplies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to that type. However, a manufacturer's classification does not bind the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

Under @ 571.3, a "'Bus' means a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons." Since your vehicle is designed to carry a maximum of seven passengers, it appears that your vehicle is not a bus.

Your specifications indicate your use of design elements associated with a truck chassis. For example, the front twin I-beam suspension (coil springs) is designed for trucks, and the ground clearances and curb weight more nearly match truck specificatio ns than for other types of

motor vehicles. NHTSA concludes, therefore, that you are building your "Transitaxi" on a truck chassis.

Because you build this vehicle on a truck chassis and design it to carry 10 persons or less, it appears that your vehicle is a "multipurpose passenger vehicle" as that term is defined in 49 CFR @ 571.3, Definitions. Once a proper classification for your vehicle has been determined, it is your responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and agency regulations, to certify that each vehicle you manufacture meets any standard applicable to it on the date of manufacture. A multip urpose passenger vehicle must meet crash tests under some applicable standards.

If in the past you have sold motor vehicles without certifying that they meet the standards that apply to that type, or if your certification is improper because your vehicles fail to meet applicable standards, the law would require you to conduct a vehi cle notice-and-recall campaign and make your vehicles comply.

A manufacturer of 10,000 vehicles or less per year may petition the agency for a temporary exemption from any safety standard if complying with the standard would cause the manufacturer substantial economic hardship. If NHTSA were to grant a petition su ch as this, the manufacturer must make a good faith effort during the exemption period to bring the vehicle into compliance. However, if the agency were to grant an exemption, that grant would not cure past failures to comply. Given your production vol ume, you may wish to consider petitioning for an exemption. I enclose a copy of 49 CFR Part 555 which sets out the exemption procedures.

Sending NHTSA the information that Part 555 requires to support an exemption petition will give the agency what it needs to make an informed judgment of the petition's merits. Therefore, it is unnecessary for you to bring the vehicle here for a demonstr ation.

Although it appears from the attachments to your letter that you are purchasing separate components instead of incomplete vehicles (See 49 CFR @ 568.3) from Ford, we note that many small manufacturers producing special vehicles use incomplete vehicles pu rchased from a large manufacturer like Ford. To facilitate certification by the small manufacturer (called a "final stage manufacturer" by Part 568) of the completed vehicles, Part 568 requires the incomplete vehicle manufacturer to supply a document wi th each incomplete vehicle. The incomplete vehicle manufacturer can be particularly helpful by stating either that the vehicle, when completed, will conform to a safety standard if no alterations are made to identified components, or that the vehicle, w hen completed, will conform if the final stage manufacturer meets specific conditions regarding the completion process.

The final stage manufacturer would still have to certify compliance with any applicable standard not listed in the incomplete vehicle manufacturer's document. Whether Ford, who apparently sells you components instead of incomplete vehicles, may assist i n the certification process is a matter which our regulations do not address. You may wish to take up the matter with that company.

Finally, if you wish to certify your Transitaxi as a bus, you may wish to consider using a larger chassis suitable for completion with the requisite seating capacity.

I hope you find this information helpful.

Enclosure

ID: nht88-1.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/04/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Art Look -- Marketing Executive, Burke Communication Industries

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Art Look, Marketing Executive Burke Communication Industries 1165 North Clark Street Chicago, IL 60610

Your letter of October 30, 1987, addressed to Administrator Diane Steed, was referred to me for reply. You are apparently seeking this Department's approval of your product which you describe as a new warning device for stopped motor vehicles. As explain ed below, we do not provide approvals for products.

Your product is made of inflatable plastic material that you describe as "flexible and extremely durable." When a user inflates your device, the product takes the shape of a cone standing about 18" high. The pictures you enclose indicate that the inflata ble part of the cone has three broad alternating stripes. Two of the stripes are orange, and a 6" "reflective" white stripe is sandwiched between them. Your cone sits on a non-inflatable, spherical, black base filled with "approximately" 3 lbs. of sand.

You state that your device has many advantages over the warning device currently specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 125, Warning Devices. Among the advantages you list are that your device is "more visible at night, up to 1,000 ft. away;" that it "(is) not affected by winds up to 50 MPH;" and that if struck, it "will return to an upright position" without damaging the vehicle involved. You state your company's intention to package your device in a corrugated container with three inflatab le cones to a kit, including both a "new-type double-action hand pump" and instructions for proper use of your device.

Let me begin with some general information about this agency. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is an agency of the Department of Transportation, and has authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safe ty Act) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. However, NHTSA does not approve nor certify motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, or endorse any commercial product. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is required to certify that its products meet all applicable safety standards issued by this agency. Periodically, NHTSA conducts tests to issued by this agency. Periodically, NHTSA conducts tests to determine whether vehicles or equipment comply with these standards, and may investigate alleged safety-related product defects.

One of the safety standards issued by this agency is Standard 125, Warning Devices, which sets uniform performance requirements for certain devices that are designed to be carried in a motor vehicle and use when needed to warn approaching traffic when th e vehicle is disabled and stooped in or by the side of the road. The Standard applies to any such device that does not have a self-contained energy source (such as a battery). Your product falls under this Standard. Thus, it must meet the requirements of Standard 125, such as those on configuration, color, and reflectivity. Failure to comply with a standard renders the manufacturer subject to a civil penalty of $1,000 for each violation and a maximum penalty of $800,000 for a series of violations. In ad dition, the Safety Act requires a manufacturer to recall and remedy or replace a noncomplying item of motor vehicle equipment.

As the above discussion suggests, you do not need approval from NHTSA or any other agency in the Department of Transportation to market your product. However, you do need both to ensure that your product meets Standard 125's requirements and to certify c ompliance. Our preliminary review of your product indicates that you may not be able to make that certification. For example, it appears that your product may not comply with the color, reflectivity, configuration, and stability requirements of Standard 125. If your product fails to meet these or other Standard 125 requirements, you cannot legally market it as a warning device.

I hope you find this response helpful.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure - (Copy of Std. 124 and Std. 125 omitted.)

October 30, 1987

Re: Change or addition to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 125 Warning Devices

Dear Ms. Steed,

As you suggested in an earlier telephone conversation, I am sending you all the pertinent information regarding our new warning device. This road safety device was designed to protect and alert motorists to truck and auto highway breakdowns.

We realize it is our responsibility to bring to your attention the physical, mechanical and aesthetic values of the new unit which allows you to judge its uniqueness and safety features. For this reason we have enclosed all the test results performed by Quinn Laboratories here in Chicago. We are intending to use the 18" size device in our Trucker's/Motorist's kits.

As indicated in the enclosed photos and test results the warning device is fabricated from a flexible and extremely durable plastic material which is inflated before use. The device is filled at the bottom with approximately 3 lbs. of sand and has a 6" b and of reflective material 3" from the top. Upon inflation the device takes on the appearance of a cone 18" high.

The inflatable cones have many advantages over the now available devices. They are more visible at night, up to 1,000 ft. away. (Note: you will find specification and technical information on the 3M reflective material to be used at the top of the cone.) The cones are nor affected by winds up to 50 MPH and if struck, will return to an upright position. Most importantly, if struck, the cone will in no way damage the vehicle involved.

The size and colors of the cones meet with M.U.D.T.C.O. specifications.

When not in use the cones can be deflated to fit into a small compact package.

It is our intention to make a kit of three 18" cones and one new-type double-action hand pump, package in a weather proof corrugated container with instruction for filling the cones and placing them in their proper location, printed on the container. It is virtually impossible for these cones to be assembled incorrectly.

Ms. Steed, we are confident that will all the information enclosed you will judge the merits and outstanding possibilities of our new warning device in a positive manner and allow us to take the next step to get the Department of Transportation's approva l of our new road safety device.

Sincerely,

Art Look Marketing Executive Photos and test results omitted.

ID: aiam1330

Dear Mr. Swinghammer: This is in reply to your letter of November 16, 1973 asking about th proper location of identification lamps on one-man truck-tractor cabs that are offset from the vertical centerline of the vehicle. In your view 'when the Law is applied to one (1) man cabs, the possibility exists that oncoming traffic would interpret the truck as not being in its proper traffic lane.'; As you have pointed out, front identification lamps are required b Table II of Standard No. 108 to be 'as close as practicable to the tope(sic) of the vehicle. . . as close as practicable to the vertical centerline. . . .' The 'vertical centerline' is that of the vehicle which is usually that of the cab as well. However, an identification lamp arrangement around the vertical centerline of an offset cab is considered to meet the standard.; We are not aware that an actual safety problem is presented by th current practice of mounting identification lamps around the centerline of offset cabs, and the fact that you produce less than 1,000 vehicles per year does not relieve you of the requirement of providing these lamps.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: nht87-3.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/19/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Roger M. Cox -- R & R Lighting, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 8/11/88 letter from Erika Z. Jones to J. Mike Callahan (A32; Std. 108); 4/14/87 letter from J. Mike Callahan to Taylor Vinson (occ 409); 9/3/87 letter from Erika Z. Jones to David M. Romansky

TEXT: Mr. Roger M. Cox R & R Lighting, Inc. Route 1, Box 190 Gadsden, AL 35901

Dear Mr. Cox:

This is in reply to your letter of July 8, 1987, with respect to whether a lighting product you intend to market is "in violation of any federal regulation when mounted on a motor vehicle." You describe your product as a "lighted decal" which can be mounted in the rear window of any car or pick-up truck, and the photographs you enclosed show it mounted in the center of the rear window of a pre-1980 model Seville. The decal will be wired int o the brake system and when activated by the brake "only the letters in the decal will be lighted." You state further that although the letters will appear red to an observer this product is not designed nor will it be marketed as a brake light or a tail light.

In our opinion, your product may or may not be in violation of Federal requirements depending upon the following uses. The product does not appear to be intended as a substitute for the center highmounted stop lamp that has been standard equipment on pas senger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985. Indeed, it could not be so used unless it met all requirements for such a lamp. The principal requirements are that such lamps have a minimum of 4 1/2 square inches of illuminated lens area, that it meet specified photometrics at 13 test points, ad that it produce a signal visible from 45 degrees from the right to the left and from five degrees up to five degrees down. If your device does not meet these requirements, removal of the lamp and replace ment with your device would violate a prohibition of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act against rendering inoperative equipment installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, in this case Safety Standard No. 108, Lam ps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. However, a dealer could install it on a new pick-up truck, or to one side of the center lamp in a new passenger car before their initial sale, provided the device did not impair the effectiveness of the r ear lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108, and the device could be installed on some vehicles in use (cars built before September 1, 1984, and any pick-up) provided that it did not render inoperative in whole or in part other required rear ligh ting equipment.

By this we mean that the device appears allowable for these vehicles under Federal law provided that wiring it into the brake system does not reduce the stop lamp output or otherwise affect the operation or the effectiveness of the stop lamp system. You should also ensure that your product is acceptable under State and local laws as well. Because there are no Federal requirements for your product, each State may regulate it as it deems proper.

I am enclosing the samples that you enclosed, and hope that we have answered your questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

R & R Lighting, Incorporated Route 1, Box 190 Gadsden, Alabama 35901

July 8, 1987

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Attention: Ms. Erika Jones

Dear Mrs. Jones:

I am in the final planning stage before marketing/manufacturing a new product. After having exhausted all efforts at state and national levels, I talked with Mr. Brooks in the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. It was Mr. Brooks' opinion that we are no t in violation of any federal laps, but he suggested I correspond with you to get an appropriate legal opinion as to whether my product in violation of any federal regulation when mounted on a motor vehicle.

My product. the "#1-American Team Light", is a lighted decal. It is designed to be mounted in the rear window. My product can be mounted onany car or pick-up truck. It will be wired into the brake system and when activated by the brake, only the letters in the decal will be lighted. The letters will appear the same color as automobile manufacturers use in brake lights and tail lights; however, this product is not designed nor will it be marketed as a brake light or tail light. We have targeted the sport s enthusiast at high school and college level as our market group. We also feel we have a smaller market at local and state levels with a lighted decal that reads "Police" and "State Trooper".

In order to effectively market my product at its peak season, which would be September, time is of the essence. I have enclosed a sample lens and photographs.

Please review my information and sample and let me hear from you at your earliest convenience. If further information is needed, please call me collect at (205) 442-1642 or (205) 442-8436.

Very truly yours,

R & R LIGHTING INCORPORATED

Roger M. Cox

RMC/lc

Enclosures

ID: nht75-3.37

DATE: 11/21/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; G.G. Mannella for James B. Gregory; NHTSA

TO: National Association of Motor Bus Owners

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letters of November 12 and 13, 1975, in which you requested that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration immediately suspend the effectiveness of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, with respect to buses, without waiting until the end of a comment period. In a notice published November 13, 1975, 40 FR 52856, this agency proposed such a suspension with a 30-day comment period ending December 15, 1975.

Secretary Coleman has made clear his commitment to allowing adequate time for public comment on rulemaking actions. The normal minimum time for public comment on Department of Transportation actions has been established as 45 days. In this case, because of the special urgency of the matter, the period was reduced to 30 days. I believe we all recognize that this action is a significant one, affecting the performance and cost of most of the transit and intercity buses in the country. In these circumstances, it is our judgment that the 30-day period is the minimum that can be justified for comment by the interested public, and your request is therefore denied.

We also recognize, as you have pointed out, that for this short period there may be some uncertainty and some interruption of normal activities within the affected industries. We will make every effort to reach and announce a decision as soon as possible after the end of the comment period.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MOTOR BUS OWNERS

November 13, 1975

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

Dear Dr. Gregory:

This will supplement my letter of November 12, 1975, in regard to the problems created by failure to make effective immediately the suspension of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121 requirements respecting the brake anti-lock system on buses.

We understand why the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not want to deny any opponent of the proposed suspension an opportunity to be heard. Also, we are sure NHTSA does not want to halt sales of buses for six weeks or so, to disrupt bus manufacturing schedules, to cause temporary lay-offs of employees, or to require purchasers of buses to choose between taking immediate delivery of a needed bus or saving some $ 1,300.00 by postponing acceptance of delivery. These are the consequences of failure to make the suspension effective immediately.

We offer the following solution which, in our opinion, will fully protect the rights of any protestant of suspension if one should appear.

We suggest the suspension be made effective immediately, provided, the manufacturer and purchaser of any bus sold between now and January 1, 1976, agree in writing to the installation of the anti-skid device on or before January 8, 1976, if the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concludes that suspension of the MVSS-121 requirement is unwarranted.

Since NAMBO members will be attending their Annual Meeting in Phoenix beginning Saturday, November 15, I am turning this matter over to NAMBO's General Counsel, Drew L. Carraway, Esq. of the firm of Rice, Carpenter and Carraway. Mr. Carraway will be in touch with your General Counsel's office to ascertain whether our proposal is satisfactory and advise those of us in Phoenix of your decision on this important matter.

Sincerely yours,

Charles A. Webb -- PRES.

cc: Frank A. Berndt (Acting Chief Counsel); Richard Dyson (Chief Counsel's Office)

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MOTOR BUS OWNERS

November 12, 1975

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

Dear Dr. Gregory:

ON November 11, 1975, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a proposed amendment of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, 49 CFR 571.121, to suspend, until January 1, 1977, service brake stopping distance requirements as they apply to buses.

In its tentative findings the Administration correctly noted that the present anti-lock system in buses is "characterized by malfunction that warrants its deactivation on all vehicles on which it is installed while a correction is fully developed" and that "a situation wherein purchasers of new buses are required to pay for anti-lock systems which are to remain deactivated for an indefinite period is inappropriate. NAMBO agrees with these findings.

The publication of this notice of proposed amendment of MVSS No. 121 creates a further problem for bus manufacturers since potential bus buyers will not purchase buses manufactured prior to whatever date the NHTSA may publish a final rule in the Federal Register due to the problems created by the anti-lock components as well as their cost.

Therefore, NAMBO urges the Administration to authorize the suspension of installation of potentially defective anti-lock components in buses pending a decision on the proposed amendment to MVSS No. 121.

The Annual Meeting of our Association begins on Sunday, November 16, in Phoenix, Arizona, at which time we will discuss and prepare a detailed explanation of the problems which would be created if the suspension cannot be made effective immediately. Our letter will be hand delivered to you on Thursday, November 20, with a copy to Mr. Richard Dyson of the Chief Counsel's Office.

Sincerely yours,

Charles A. Webb -- PRES.

cc: Richard Dyson

ID: 77-2.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/25/77

FROM: FRANCIS ARMSTRONG -- NHTSA DIRECTOR OFFICE OF STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT MOTOR VEHICLE PROGRAMS

TO: TOM SCHOFIELD -- A. N. DERINGER & CO.

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Schofield:

This is in response to your recent inquiry concerning the importation of motor vehicles for resale. Such importation makes you a "manufacturer" under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act) (15 USC 1381 et seq.) and subject to the regulations listed as items two through ten on the last page of this letter.

As a general rule, under section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act, all motor vehicles, new or used, manufactured on or after January 1, 1968, must conform to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) in order to be imported into the United States. The regulation governing the importation of motor vehicles is Title 19, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 12.80 (19 CFR 12.80).

If you import a vehicle not certified by the original manufacturer, you must submit within 90 days of the entry a compliance statement to substantiate that the vehicle has been brought into conformity. Your statement must identify the manufacturer, contractor, or other person who has brought the vehicle into conformity, and must describe in exact detail the nature and extent of the work performed. Failure to substantiate that the vehicle has been brought into conformity or sale of the vehicle before release of bond, renders you liable for imposition of civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 per vehicle and/or assessment of liquidated damages in the amount of the value of the bond required by 19 CFR 12.80(c).

Section 114 (15 USC 1403) of the Act and Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 567 (49 CFR 567), require that manufacturers permanently affix a tag or label to a motor vehicle certifying that it conforms to all applicable FMVSS. Prior to your sale of a vehicle, you as the "manufacturer" are also required to certify conformance with all applicable FMVSS by permanently affixing the certification label specified, see 567.2(b) and 567.4(g)(1). This label shall be affixed at the time of submission of your compliance statement.

If you determine in good faith that any vehicle imported and sold by you does not conform with any of the applicable FMVSS or contains a safety-related defect, section 151 (15 USC 1411) of the Act requires that you furnish notification to the Secretary and to owners in accordance with section 153 (15 USC 1413) and to remedy without cost the failure to conform or defect in accordance with section 154 (15 USC 1414).

Since in all probability the trucks referenced in your conversation with Mr. Robert W. Aubuchon, a member of my staff, fall into the classification of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages, we are enclosing a copy of 49 CFR 568.

As requested the points of contact for certification matters in the companies you referenced are:

Mr. J. C. Eckhold Director, Auto Safety Office Ford Motor Co. The American Road Dearborn, Michigan 48121

Mr. David E. Martin Manager, Auto Safety Engineering Dept. Environmental Activities Staff General Motors Technical Center Warren, Michigan 48090

Mr. L. W. Moore Manager, Reliability and Warranty International Harvester Co. P.O. Box 1109 Fort Wayne, Indiana 46801

Mr. James W. Lawrence Manager, Safety and Environmental Engineering Truck Group White Motor Corp. P.O. Box 91500 Cleveland, Ohio 44101

You should also note that under 49 CFR 566 you are required to submit certain identifying information and a description of your product to the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

It should also be noted that before offering a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment for importation into the United States, a foreign manufacturer is required to register an "Agent-for-Service" of process as set forth in 49 CFR 551.45 and to furnish the information required by 49 CFR 566.

Federal regulations concerning anti-pollution emission control devices are not the responsibility of the Department of Transportation. For guidance in this area it is suggested that you write the Environmental Protection Agency, Director, Mobile Source Enforcement Division, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460

You are advised to carefully examine the Act, Importation Regulations, and FMVSS as well as other regulations listed below to insure that you fully understand the extent of the responsibilities you incur upon the importation of a motor vehicle for resale. Enclosed for your information and guidance is a copy of the following:

1. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 USC 1381 et seq.)

2. 49 CFR 551, "Procedural Rules"

3. 49 CFR 566, "Manufacturer Identification"

4. 49 CFR 567, "Certification"

5. 49 CFR 571, "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards"

6. 49 CFR 574, "Tire Identification and Recordkeeping"

7. 49 CFR 575, "Consumer Information"

8. 49 CFR 577, "Defect Notification"

9. 49 CFR 580, "Odometer Disclosure Requirements"

10. 19 CFR 12.80, "Importation Regulations"

11. Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations

12. Form HS-189, "General Requirements of FMVSS"

Should you have other questions, please contact Mr. Robert Aubuchon, a member of my staff, telephone number 202-426-1693.

13. ENCLOSURES

Sincerely,

ID: aiam4029

Dear Mr. Hall: Thank you for your letter to Administrator Steed on behalf of you constituent, Mr. C. Daniel Raisch, Superintendent of the Oakwood City School District, regarding the school bus regulations issued by this agency. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply.; Superintendent Raisch is concerned with the manner in which ou regulations are applied to school vans that carry 10 or more passengers. He believes that only 10 persons are allowed to be transported in a van, and requests that this number be increased to 12. You inquired into a waiver from this agency that would permit the Oakwood City School District to transport more than 10 school children in a school van.; I appreciate this opportunity to clarify our regulations for schoo buses. To begin, I would like to emphasize that Federal law does not prohibit schools from carrying more than 10 passengers in a school van. Federal law does, however, affect the sale of buses to schools. Our regulations would permit the sale of new 12-passenger vans to the Oakwood City School District if the seller can ensure that the van meets all applicable motor vehicle safety standards, including the safety standards we issued in 1977 for school buses.; Some background information on this subject may be helpful. Our agenc has the authority, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, to issue motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles, including school buses. In 1974, Congress expressly amended the Vehicle Safety Act to direct this agency to issue motor vehicle safety standards on various aspects of school bus performance, such as seating systems, fuel systems, windows and windshields, and emergency exits. The standards we issued became effective April 1, 1977, and apply to each school bus manufactured after that date.; 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 our regulations, a new vehicle designed for carrying 11 or more persons (including the driver) is considered to be a 'bus,' and is considered to be a 'school bus' if sold for school-related purposes. 49 C.F.R. 571.3(b). Thus new 12- passenger vans sold to the Oakwood City School District are included in our definition of a 'school bus,' and may be sold to the school district if they meet our school bus safety standards. If any new vehicle does not meet those standards, the seller may be required to recall the vehicle and to pay civil penalties.; Superintendent Raisch suggested that NHTSA grant a waiver permittin manufacturers to sell 12-passenger vans as school buses when those vans do not comply with the school bus safety standards. While Section 123 of the Vehicle Safety Act authorizes NHTSA to issue temporary exemptions of motor vehicles from our vehicle safety standards, our agency has no general waiver authority. Under S123, our authority to grant exemptions is limited to certain very specific conditions involving a limited number of vehicles. Therefore, NHTSA has no authority to provide the type of relief your constituent requests.; Mr. Raisch may also be suggesting that we change our definition of 'school bus' to permit the sale of new 12-passenger vans as school buses when those vans do not meet our school bus safety standards. At this time, we have no reason to believe that such a change would be in the interest of school bus safety. Our safety standards for school buses were developed to specify comprehensive requirements for school buses that would reduce the number of school bus fatalities and the severity of injuries. Amending our definition of a 'school bus' along the lines suggested by Mr. Raisch would restrict the applicability of our school bus safety standards. The safety record of school buses since the issuance of our school bus safety standards in April 1977 has been remarkable, and we believe that school vans carrying 10 or more passengers should continue to afford the high levels of passenger protection currently required for school buses.; I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact thi agency if you have any further questions.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1035

Dear Mr. Taylor: This is in reply to your letter of February 9, 1973, regarding th application of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials'. You ask whether both the face and the under-surfaces of a single or composite material must meet the burn- rate requirement of Paragraph S4.3, and whether it is necessary to subject both surfaces to the flammability test in Paragraph S5.; Under Paragraph S5.2.2 of the standard, test specimens for eac component are to be tested 'so as to provide the most adverse results'. This means that the relevant test result is the most adverse one achieved in any horizontal orientation, either upward- or downward-facing. Accordingly, while every surface of a test specimen must meet the burn-rate requirement, the way you determine which positioning of the test specimen produces the most adverse results is within your own discretion.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel