ID: 10195-2

Mr. Jerry Miller
Director of Operations
Associated Leasing Handicapable Vans
12117 Riverwood Drive
Burnsville, MN 55337

Dear Mr. Miller:

This responds to your letter of May 31, 1994, requesting confirmation that "there are no rules or regulations on wheelchair tie downs for vehicles other than school buses."

You are correct that Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, which includes requirements for wheelchair securement devices, applies only to school buses. However, while none of the safety standards apply to wheelchair securement devices for vehicles other than wheelchairs, the manufacturer of the product is subject to federal requirements concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety (49 U.S.C. 30118-30121). The agency does not determine the existence of defects except in the context of a defect proceeding.

You should also be aware that the Department of Transportation has issued a final rule implementing the transportation provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act. This final rule includes requirements for wheelchair securement devices installed in vehicles required to be accessible by this rule. A copy of the final rule is enclosed with this letter. If you have further questions on these regulations, please contact Mr. Irv Chor of the Federal Transit Administration. Mr. Chor's card is attached to the final rule.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions concerning NHTSA regulations, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:222 d:8/19/95

ID: nht92-5.25

DATE: July 9, 1992

FROM: Mark V. Schwartz -- Account Executive, Entran Devices, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Section 572.36G Clarification Request

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/29/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Mark V. Schwartz (A40; Part 572)

TEXT:

I am writing this letter on behalf of Entran Devices, pursuant to discussions that I have had with Bob Krause and Steve Kratzke. Among the products manufactured by Entran Devices are accelerometers utilized by the Automotive Industry for safety testing.

We had run into a roadblock in attempting to serve the accelerometer requirements for the Hybrid III dummy. Section 572.36G and Figures 23 and 24 in this section call out the use of an accelerometer "that shall have dimensions and characteristics of Endevco 7231C or equivalent".

We feel that Entran's EGE-72C-750 meets all the relevant criteria. I am requesting a clarification of the regulation that I believe will confirm our position. Attached you will find a list of parameters that define the EGE-72C-750. I have also enclosed our published data sheet that covers the entire EGE-72 family.

I will look forward to your response on this issue. If there should be any questions or requirements for additional information, please do not hesitate to call me at 800-635-0650.

(Enclosures omitted)

ID: nht95-1.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 9, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jerry G. Sullivan, P.E. -- The Braun Company

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 10/18/94 letter from Jerry G. Sullivan to Mary Versailles (OCC 10443)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Sullivan:

This responds to your letter addressed to Mary Versailles of this office in which you asked whether, under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release, the driver's side front door area on n on-school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) less than 10,000 pounds could be credited toward the unobstructed openings requirement of section @5.2.

The opening paragraph of section S5.2, Provision of emergency exits, requires buses other than school buses to provide unobstructed openings for emergency exits which collectively amount, in square inches, to 67 times the number of designated seating pos itions on the vehicle. The same paragraph also requires that at least 40 percent of the total unobstructed opening area must be provided on each side of the bus. No single emergency exit, however, can be credited with more than 536 square inches of the total area requirement.

With regard to non-school buses with a GVWR less than 10,000 pounds, section S5.2.2(c) provides that such buses may meet the emergency exit requirements by means of doors. Accordingly, nothing in the standard prohibits crediting the driver's side door a s an emergency exit so long as it meets all emergency exit requirements of the standard, including the release mechanism and 40 percent requirements, up to a maximum credit of 536 square inches.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht

ID: nht94-1.40

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 4, 1994

FROM: John Moore -- Maintenance, Ferrucci Nurseries

TO: Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/14/94 from John Womack to John Moore (A42; Std. 207)

TEXT:

I am seeking verification of information regarding the installation of passenger seats in a van used for farm transportation. I have been instructed by George Shifflet that as long as we're in compliance with safety regulations, we are permitted to make the installation. Please verify this information in writing, and either fax to me at (609) 697-4241, or mail to me at:

Ferrucci Nurseries Rd 1, Box 299 Piney Hollow Rd. Newfield, NJ 08344

Should you need to discuss this request further, please contact me at any time.

Thank you for your cooperation.

ID: nht94-8.31

DATE: February 4, 1994

FROM: John Moore -- Maintenance, Ferrucci Nurseries

TO: Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/14/94 from John Womack to John Moore (A42; Std. 207)

TEXT:

I am seeking verification of information regarding the installation of passenger seats in a van used for farm transportation. I have been instructed by George Shifflet that as long as we're in compliance with safety regulations, we are permitted to make the installation. Please verify this information in writing, and either fax to me at (609) 697-4241, or mail to me at:

Ferrucci Nurseries Rd 1, Box 299 Piney Hollow Rd.

Newfield, NJ 08344

Should you need to discuss this request further, please contact me at any time.

Thank you for your cooperation.

ID: nht95-4.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 9, 1995

FROM: Rita Cola Carroll, M.A. -- Chairperson, Bus Safety Committee, Great Valley School District, Paoli, PA

TO: Office of Chief Council for the NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 11/21/95 LETTER FROM Samuel J. Dubbin to Rita Cola Carroll (A43; Std. 222)

TEXT: Dear Sir or Madam,

I represent the Bus Safety Committee from Great Valley School District in Southeastern Pennsylvania. I would like to request a formal written response to the following question. If a child is not sitting fully in a school bus seat, that is, a child's b ody is partially extending into the aisle, is the child afforded the protection of the bus compartment in accordance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 222? A rapid response to this question would be most welcome.

Sincerely,

ID: nht95-7.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 9, 1995

FROM: Rita Cola Carroll, M.A. -- Chairperson, Bus Safety Committee, Great Valley School District, Paoli, PA

TO: Office of Chief Council for the NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 11/21/95 LETTER FROM Samuel J. Dubbin to Rita Cola Carroll (A43; Std. 222)

TEXT: Dear Sir or Madam,

I represent the Bus Safety Committee from Great Valley School District in Southeastern Pennsylvania. I would like to request a formal written response to the following question. If a child is not sitting fully in a school bus seat, that is, a child's body is partially extending into the aisle, is the child afforded the protection of the bus compartment in accordance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 222? A rapid response to this question would be most welcome.

Sincerely,

ID: nht87-1.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/20/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Senator Strom Thurmond

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 3/22/79 letter from Frank Berndt to Sterling Troxel; 10/5/78 letter from Joseph J. Levin to Charles B. Honeycutt; 12/29/77 letter from Joseph J. Levin to Kentucky Dept. of Education; 3/20/78 letter from J.J. Levin, Jr., to Nebraska Dept. of Mot or Vehicles

TEXT:

Dear Senator Thurmond:

Thank you for your December 8, 1986, letter enclosing correspondence from your constituent, Mr. Roy H. Herron of the Anderson County School District No. 3 in Iva, concerning our school bus regulations. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply , since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for administering Federal programs relating to school bus safety.

In his letters to you' Mr. Herron expressed his concern with Federal laws Which he believes prohibit the school district from using 15-passenger vans manufactured on or after April 1, 1977, that do not meet Federal school bus standards. be argues that th ere is a need for school districts to use 15-passenger vans and suggests that we amend our regulations to permit their use.

I appreciate this opportunity to clarify our regulations for school buses. As explained below, the Federal requirements apply only to the manufacture and sale of new school buses, not to the operation of school buses after they have been purchased. Thus, there is no Federal law that prohibits the Anderson County School District from using their 15-passenger vans to carry school children. Federal law does, however, affect the manufacture of the vans and their sale to school districts.

I believe it might be helpful to begin with some background information on our school bus regulations. NHTSA has the authority, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, to regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. In 1974, Congress enacted the School bus and Motor Vehicle Safety Amendments which directed NHTSA to issue motor vehicle safety standards on specific aspects of school bus safety and apply those standards to all vehicles designed to carry more than 10 passengers and likely to be significantly used for student transportation. The school bus standards we issued became effective April 1, 1977, and apply to each new school bus manufactured on or after that date. School buses manufactured prior to the effective date of the safety standards were not required to be designed and built in compliance with those standards.

Under the Vehicle Safety Act, manufacturers of school buses must ensure that their new vehicles meet all Federal safety standards applicable to buses and also those specifically applicable to school buses. The Safety Act also requires each person selling a new "school bus" to ensure that the bus complies with our school bus safety standards or be potentially subject to fines under Federal law. We define a "school bus" as a motor vehicle designed for 11 or more persons (driver included) and intended for transporting students to and from school or related events. Since new 15-passenger vans that are sold to the Anderson County School Districts are considered "school buses" under Federal law, persons selling such vans must ensure that the vans conform to Federal school bus safety standards.

Mr. Herron suggests that the definition of a school bus be amended to provide that passenger capacity be extended to 15 passengers. NHTSA's definition of a school bus necessarily follows the statutory definition of that term. Without a change by Congress in the statutory definition, our definition must remain as it is.

Your constituent argues in his letter to you that 15-passenger vans should be safe enough for school children since they are safe for other passengers. The legislative history of the School bus amendments of 1974 indicate that Congress believed that spec ial measures should be taken to protect school children who use school bus transportation. Fifteen-passenger vans (i.e., buses) meeting our school bus safety standards provide more safety features than other buses. School buses must meet stringent perfor mance requirements, including those for interior protection, fuel systems, emergency exits, windows and windshields and seating systems.

New 15-passenger vans, conforming to our school bus standards, may be sold to the Anderson County School Districts to transport its pupils to school related events. The school districts may also purchase 9-passenger vans for school transportation, becaus e such vans are considered "multipurpose passenger vehicles"' (MPV's) and not "school buses" under Federal law. We do not prohibit the sale of new MPV's to carry school children nor do we require then to comply with Federal school bus safety standards. I nstead, they must meet the performance requirements set by the safety standards for MPV's, which also provide high levels of passenger safety.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

December 8, 1986 Mr. David Sloane, Director Congressional Affairs Department of Transportation Suite 10406, 400 Seventh Streets S. W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Sloan:

I have enclosed for your review communication from Mr. Roy H. Herron regarding the regulations pertaining to the transporting of students to and from school.

It is my understanding that your regulations allow schools to use vans that Here manufactured on or before April 1, 1977 that do not comply with school bus safety standards, but the schools are not allowed to use new vans unless they comply with all the school bus safety standards.

I would appreciate your explaining these regulations and giving me an up to date status report of this case.

With kindest regards and Greetings of the Season,

Sincerely,

Strom Thurmond

ST/hk Enclosure

November 25, 1986

The Honorable Strom Thurmond The United States Senate Washington, D. C.

Attention Mr. Jeff Kull

Dear Sir:

This letter is follow-up to our conversation this date concerning the use of vans to transport school students to related events.

The more we read into this problem it appears that the Department of Transportation is concerned only with vehicles introduced into the transportation system.

The attached letter, dated March 22, 1979, from then Acting Chief Counsel Frank Berndt to Mr. Sterling Troxel states in paragraph three that "the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not regulate the sale or use of used vehicles. Therefore , there would be no Federal penalty upon a person selling such a used vehicle for school use."

This whole set of regulation is arbitrary. Under current regulations a church group can transport our school students on Saturday and/or Sunday in the same type vehicle we use and be legal.

Your assistance in getting this regulation changed or waived so that school districts can use vans designed to carry 15 passengers or less, including driver, will be appreciated.

Sincerely,

Roy H. Herron Superintendent

encls.

The Honorable Strom Thurmond United States Senator Senate Office Building Washington, D. C. 20515

Dear Senator Thurmond:

The purpose of this letter is to ask for your assistance. We have recently been made aware of Department of Transportation regulations (attached) that prohibit the use of vehicles designed to trans- port more than 10 passengers, that were manufactured af ter 1977, for the purpose of transporting school students unless the vehicle meets school bus specifications.

This school district and the vast majority of other districts in South Carolina use vans for transporting cheerleaders, small athletic teams, students on field trips and other academic related activities.

This regulation does not seem to be well thoughtout. Either a vehicle is safe to carry passengers or it is not; whether they be school children or adults. A van with its higher gross vehicle weight and seats installed higher than most other traffic is mu ch safer than a station wagon or automobile.

The impact of complying with this regulation is substantial. To replace our two vans with minibuses will cost our district $60,000 plus increased operating expenses. We are a small district, therefore, the impact on larger districts is even greater.

We have operated vans for many years with a perfect safety record. They serve a need most effectively and efficiently.

A remedy that will aid all school districts in South Carolina is for DOT to amend its regulation so that vehicles designed to carry 15 passengers or less be exempt from school bus standards. This change will not contribute to reduced safety for our stude nts.

Your assistance in this matter is most appreciated.

Sincerely,

Roy H. Herroxn Superintendent

(See letters from NHTSA to Sterling Troxel, Charles B. Honeycutt, Nebraska Dept. of Motor Vehicles and Kentucky Dept. of Education)

ID: nht76-4.21

DATE: 05/13/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. WOOD for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Rome Engineering & Manufacturing Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Remco's April 26, 1976, question whether an exclusion from a safety standard based on the gross axle weight rating (GAWR) of an axle is met by using the rating of the axle beam by its manufacturer, or whether the truck or trailer manufacturer must also consider the load-bearing abilities of the wheels, rims, and hubs used with the axle beam.

Gross axle weight rating is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 to mean:

. . . the value specified by the vehicle manufacturer as the load-carrying capacity of a single axle system, as measured at the tireground interfaces.

This definition means that the determination of GAWR is made by the vehicle manufacturer and that the axle beam rating of the component supplier cannot be the only basis for GAWR calculation. The GAWR is the value established at the tire-ground interfaces at each wheel position, and this means that the wheels, rims, hubs, and tires must be included in the determination. Thus, with regard to the exclusion from Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, until September 1, 1977, for any vehicle with an axle that has a GAWR of 24,000 pounds or more, the vehicle manufacturer must take into consideration each component on the axle as well as its attachment to the vehicle frame.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

ROME ENGINEERING & MANUFACTURING CO.

April 26, 1976

TAD HERLIHY -- OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL -- National Highway Safety Administration

Dear Sir:

We are in need of clarification of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121 as pertains to paragraph S3 of Part 571-S121-1, quote: "or that has a gross axle weight rating for any axle of 24,000 pounds or more."

Does this mean that a certification from the axle manufacturer that his product is rated at 24,000 pounds or more would exempt the trailer manufacturer from compliance with MVSS 121 or is it necessary to have a single axle as well as the tires, wheels, hubs, and rims on that axle rated at 24,000 pounds or more capacity before the exemption is valid?

We would appreciate an advisory opinion on this matter.

Thank you.

Very truly yours,

R. A. Plummer -- Vice President & General Manager

ID: SUBLEASE.ETL

Marian E. Baldwin, Esq.
Chadbourne & Parke LLP
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10112

Dear Ms. Baldwin:

This is in response to your letter of September 12, 1996, in which you request written confirmation from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") that the transfer of a leasehold interest in a motor vehicle that you describe in your letter "would not require compliance with the odometer disclosure requirements set forth in . . . 49 CFR Part 580 at the inception of the leasehold transaction," in those states which have given you official written notice that the transaction that you describe is not a transfer of ownership which would require issuance of a new title.

As you describe the transaction that is the subject of your request, the leasing company that owns motor vehicles already under lease to end-users ('the lease company") is to lease the leases of those vehicles to a special-purpose trust ("the trust") (formed for the sole purpose of executing this financial transaction), which will simultaneously sublease the vehicle back to the lease company. Your letter further states that the leases and subleases executed between the lease company and the trust are "subject to" the end-user leases of the customers who lease the vehicles from the automobile lease company. In your letter, you also indicate your understanding that the interpretation you are requesting would apply only with respect to transactions of the nature described in your letter that take place in states that have formally (i.e., in writing, over the signature of an authorized individual) determined that such transactions do not require a transfer of title.

With the above limitation, I can confirm that your understanding is correct. The statute that sets forth Federal odometer disclosure requirements is the Truth-in-Mileage Act of 1986 ("TIMA"), now codified at 49 U.S.C. Chapter 327. Section 32705 of that statute requires a transferor of a motor vehicle to make a signed disclosure of the vehicle's odometer reading at the time that he or she is transferring ownership of a motor vehicle. Section 32705(b) also requires that this disclosure must be made on the vehicle's title. The Federal odometer disclosure regulations implementing this provision (49 CFR Part 580) likewise make it clear that the requirement to disclose the odometer reading arises when there is a transfer that requires the state to issue a new title in the name of a different owner. See 49 CFR 580.5.

NHTSA recognizes that the laws of the individual states differ as to the types of transactions that require the issuance of a title in the name of a different owner. TIMA relies on disclosure of odometer information on the vehicle's title document at the time of title transfer as its principal means of reducing odometer fraud. The integrity of the "paper trail" of written and signed odometer disclosure statements on the vehicle title must be maintained in order to accomplish this purpose.

Accordingly, the critical issue that must be addressed in deciding whether to require an odometer disclosure in a given transaction is whether that transaction requires a transfer of title under state law. The only way to ensure the integrity of the paper trail is to require that an odometer disclosure be made any time there is a transaction involving a motor vehicle otherwise covered by Part 580, that requires retitling of the vehicle in a new name under state law.

In your letter you have attached letters from officials of the states of New York, New Jersey and Florida in which they have stated their determinations that the transaction that you described to them, which is the same as the one that you describe in your letter to NHTSA, is not one which would require issuance of a new title under the laws of those states. We have independently reviewed the information you submitted describing the nature of the transaction, as well as the reasons given by the states for their conclusions that the transaction did not require the issuance of a new title under their laws. We conclude that the conclusions reached by the states regarding the legal status of your proposed transaction are reasonable and well-founded.

The lease company is leasing, rather than selling, the leases it owns in certain vehicles to the trust, which in turn is subleasing that interest back to the lease company. The lease company does not in these transactions relinquish ownership of the vehicle itself, nor does it relinquish ownership of the lease to the end-user. Therefore, there is a reasonable basis for these states to conclude that neither the lease of the

lease to the trust, nor its sublease thereof back to the lease company, are events that constitute a change in ownership interest which would require retitling under their laws.

Therefore, the agency concludes that in the states that have concluded that these events do not require the issuance of a new title, there is no requirement for an odometer disclosure statement either when the leasing company leases its lease to the trust, or when the trust subleases the lease back to the lease company. This opinion is not intended in any way to require, or even suggest, that other states reach the same conclusion as to whether the transaction you describe requires a new title. Whether a transaction involving a motor vehicle requires the issuance of a new title is a matter for each state to decide for itself based on its own laws and regulations governing motor vehicle titling. Accordingly, the conclusions stated herein do not apply to transactions of the type you describe that take place in states other than those that have officially concluded that the transaction does not require retitling.

Your letter is correct in its statement of what the Federal odometer law requires when the trust expires. At that time, the leasing company has the option of whether to buy out the trust's sublease. If it does so, it still retains ownership of the vehicle and the underlying lease to the end-user. Since exercising the option to buy out the lease does not involve a change of ownership, it does not require an odometer disclosure statement. However, if the leasing company does not exercise this option when the sublease expires, the special-purpose trust would take possession of the vehicles and their leases. As your letter correctly points out, this transaction is a change which requires the trust to apply for a new title, which in turn triggers the obligation to comply with all elements of Part 580 that are applicable. This includes both obtaining from the end-user/lessee a disclosure of the odometer mileage in compliance with 49 CFR 580.7, Disclosure of odometer information for leased motor vehicles, as well as the disclosure made by the lease company to the trust pursuant to 49 CFR 580.5.

I hope the information provided above is responsive to your request. If you have any further legal questions concerning the Federal odometer statute and regulations you may address them to this office at the above address, or telephone me at 202-366-9511 or Eileen Leahy, an attorney on my staff, at 202-366-5263.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:580

d:10/25/96