ID: nht92-5.31

DATE: July 1, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Gene Fouts -- Shelbyville Municipal Water and Sewer (Kentucky)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/19/91 from Paul J. Rice to Jerry Tassan (Part 567)

TEXT:

This responds to the questions you posed in a telephone conversation with Mr. Jim Simons of our Plans and Policy division. Specifically, you asked whether a vehicle manufacturer can alter the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) assigned to one of its vehicles on the certification label, and, if so, how the alteration would be accomplished. You asked this question in the context of the Federal Highway Administration's commercial driver's license program which applies in part, to commercial vehicles with a GVWR of 26,001 lbs. or more. I am pleased to have this chance to explain our regulations for you.

In a March 19, 1991 letter to Mr. Jerry Tassan, a copy of which is enclosed for your information, I explained that the only parties that can assign or modify a vehicle's GVWR are the original manufacturer, a final stage manufacturer, or an alterer. Thus, the answer to the first part of your question is that the original vehicle manufacturer can modify the GVWR assigned to vehicles. However, modifications to assigned GVWRs should not be made for reasons relating to the GVWR threshold of the commercial driver's license program. This agency expects that modifications to assigned GVWRs would be made only when the manufacturer had made an effort regarding the originally assigned GVWR on the certification label and that the manufacturer's certification of compliance with all applicable safety standards would still be valid for this vehicle at the modified GVWR. The modified GVWR should, of course, comply with S567.4(g)(3) of Title 49 of the CFR which requires that the GVWR "not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity." The agency further expects that if a manufacturer changed the GVWR of one vehicle, it would also change the GVWR of all similar vehicles.

The answer to how the manufacturer would go about modifying the assigned GVWR on a vehicle is not set forth explicitly in our regulations. Hence, the manufacturer has some latitude in choosing what it would provide to display the modified GVWR on the vehicle. However, a label with the modified GVWR should be permanently affixed to the vehicle as near as possible to the certification label. Further, the modification would have to be shown in such a way that the vehicle operator would not be likely to misunderstand or be confused about which GVWR the vehicle manufacturer regards as the correct one.

In your telephone conversation with Mr. Simons, you indicated that you were also interested in whether the Federal Highway Administration would recognize a modified GVWR for purposes of the commercial driver's license requirements. We have spoken with the Federal Highway Administration, which has indicated that it would recognize legitimate modifications to the GVWR that are made by the original vehicle manufacturer. If you have any further questions about licensing requirements for operators of commercial motor vehicles, I suggest

you contact Mr. James Scapelleto, Director, Office of Motor Carrier Standards, HCS-1, Federal Highway Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions on this subject, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 1985-03.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/13/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mike Landgraf -- Land Design Group

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Mike Landgraf Land Design Group 685 Lakebird Dr. Sunnyvale, CA 94089

Thank you for your letter of May 21, 1985, concerning Federal regulations that might affect a cargo system for hatch back cars that you are developing. You requested confidentiality for your specific product description and drawing. Since your design has not been marketed as yet, we are granting your request for confidentiality. The following discussion provides an explanation of how our standards would affect a device such as yours.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes our agency to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that apply to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. We have not issued any standard that directly applies to a cargo system such as yours. However, use of your system could be affected by Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors) which sets performance requirements for rearview mirrors; a copy of the standard and an information sheet discussing the responsibilities of vehicle and equipment manufacturers under our regulations is enclosed for your reference.

Standard No. 111 provides that each inside rearview mirror must provide a specified field of view to the rear of the vehicle. If the field of view of the inside mirror in a new vehicle is obstructed by anything other than head restraints or seated occupants, then an outside rearview mirror must be provided on the passenger's side of the vehicle. Thus, if your product were installed in a new vehicle by a manufacturer or dealer prior to its sale to a consumer, and if installation of your product would mean that the inside rearview mirror would no longer comply with the applicable field of view requirements, they would have to ensure the vehicle was equipped with the necessary additional mirror required by Standard No. 111.

In 1974, Congress amended the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to address the problem of persons tampering with safety equipment installed on a motor vehicle by adding section 108(a)(2)(A) to the Act. That section provides, in part, that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . .

Thus, if a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business adds your product to a used vehicle and if its installation would mean that the inside rearview mirror would no longer comply with the applicable field of view requirements, they would have to install an outside passenger side mirror. Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not establish any limitations on an individual vehicle owner's ability to alter his or her own vehicle. Thus, under Federal law, individual vehicle owners can themselves install any equipment they want on their vehicles, regardless of whether that equipment would render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with the performance requirements of Standard No. 111. They would, of course, still have to comply with any applicable State laws.

I hope this information is of assistance to you. If you have further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ID: nht92-7.31

DATE: April 23, 1992

FROM: John J. Duncan, Jr. -- Member of Congress, House of Representatives, Washington, DC

TO: Jerry R. Curry -- Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/29/92 from Jerry Ralph Curry to John J. Duncan, Jr. (A39; Part 571.3)

TEXT:

I am writing in regard to a problem which has been brought to my attention by Clarence Lowe of the Campbell County Comprehensive High School.

Attached is correspondence received from Mr. Lowe in which he outlines the difficulties being experienced in using vans for the Campbell County School System.

As you may know, Campbell County made the national news recently when they simply ran out of funds for bus transportation to get children to school. Campbell County is a very rural area. Furthermore, because of economic hardships, the average income per capita is very low making it even more difficult for parents to get their children to school if transportation is not provided by the school system.

Even though bus transportation was restored recently, another problem has arisen with regard to using vans to transport students for such things as off-campus curriculum experiences or extra-curricular activities. In the instance of extra-curricular activities, many times, because of this restriction, this means splitting the students up and transporting them in automobiles so they will be able to get to the event.

Although none of us want to put our children at risk, I wonder what the logic of this restriction is if, in fact, it only results in either restricting a child's education, such as off-campus curriculum, or transporting children in an even less safe manner by reverting to individual cars filled to capacity.

Unfortunately, with the financial restraints we are all witnessing at the federal, state and local government levels the added costs of trying to convert these vans to meet the standards set forth by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) appear to have put an unrealistic and unsurmountable burden on our schools.

Attached is a copy of a letter from Mr. Ernest Farmer, Director of Pupil Transportation for the State of Tennessee. Mr. Farmer appears to agree that there may be reason to investigate this matter. At present, Mr. Farmer feels that he has no alternative but to comply with these federal mandates unless directed otherwise by NHTSA. In telephone discussions with your Chief Counsel, Ken Weinstein, there was some question as to whether these restrictions were on the manufacturers of these vans or on the school systems that were using older, previously purchased vans for transportation of students.

Your response specifically outlining what federal requirements must be complied with would be sincerely appreciated. Also, it would be appreciated if you would advise me as to whether or not any changes in regard to the use of older, previously purchased vans were done through specific legislative changes or through regulations.

Your assistance in this matter would be greatly appreciated. With best wishes and personal regards, I am your truly.

Attachments

Letter dated 2/2/192

To: Congressman John J. Duncan, Jr.

House of Representatives Attention Judy Whitbred Washington, DC

Dear Congressman Duncan:

The purpose of this letter is to clarify our conversation last week concerning the problem of vans held for use in our vocational programs in the Campbell County (Tennessee) School System.

As you are aware, the Campbell County Board of Education elected to end all bus transportation for its students in late October due to severe budget deficits. This caused a great hardship for our schools, students, parents, and the county in general. Last week the County Commission approved budget transfers within the school budget to allow the restart of bus transportation on February 12, for 37 school days. We still face a possibility of no bus transportation at the end of those 37 days.

The next day after buses stopped running in our county, Tennessee State Department of Education officials within the Pupil Transportation Division informed our county education department that all school vans must be pulled off the road. They cited regulations of the U.S. Department of Transportation based on congressional legislation concerning the use of vans to transport students. I forwarded to you, after our conversation, copies that I obtained from our vocational director that related to this matter and seemed to be the basis for which the state department made its decision.

Our county vocational department had assisted our two high schools with the purchase of four vans for the purpose of transporting general building trades students from the school to the job site and back to school each day. This hands-on work experience is vital to teaching students the building trade skill. In addition, the county vocational department purchased another van for use by all vocational programs to transports students to off-campus curriculum experiences (such as clinical training for our health occupations students), meetings, conferences, conventions, and other school related functions. The building trades program has always had some types of vans for transportation purposes. Also, our athletic department has their own vans for transporting student athletes to the game sites. They too were pulled off the road. In a

time of no bus transportation and critical budget cuts, another hardship was imposed upon our educational programs.

Thus, the purpose of my contacting your office is to see if the regulations mandated concerning school van usage is still applicable and if so, might there be some relief at the federal level to allow us to use the vans or bring them into compliance without placing our school system in danger of tort liability. We would hope that the cost to comply would not prohibit our using the vans. Due to limited funds and lack of budgeted monies this may not even be an option.

The vans purchased by our vocational department are 15 passenger type. Vans are classified as either multi-purpose passenger vehicles or van conversions. Vans containing more than ten seating accommodations must meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. All vans in questions were purchased prior to the November 14, 1990 memo from the Tennessee Department of Education addressing the use of vans. Thus, it appears that our school officials had no knowledge that such regulations applied. Further, a state inspection was held on May 3, 1988, of all buses and vans in our county. All of our vans and the athletic vans passed this inspection. The only requests made of us was to number the vans, install a fire extinguisher and a first-aid kit. Only one of the vocational vans in question was in service at that time. This van, a 1987 Dodge, is held for use by all vocational programs was inspected and passed. Following that time, four new vans were purchased to replace older vans in the general building trades program. Purchased on December 8, 1988, were two 89 Ford vans, on March 21, 1989, one 89 Ford van, and on January 12, 1991, one 90 Ford Van. I am enclosing supporting memos of this inspection and related van purchase transactions.

Upon order from state officials, our vocational director, Miss Sharon Mills, stopped all vocational instructors from using the vans to transport students. Since that time our building trade students have not been to a job site for training. There is no way to transport them. Using school buses is much too expensive as those buses are privately owned. An off-campus building project had to be canceled due to the transportation problem. Their vans sit parked on the campus. An option might be to sell all the vans and use the money received from the sale toward purchase of "approved" vans. That might sound good, but there is no way to replace like numbers and the cost of new vehicles would not be something affordable in our already strapped school budget.

The van which I am most familiar with is the 1987 Dodge. I have used this van to take students to leadership conferences, conventions, competitive events, and other related programs that concern the area which I teach. This van has a tag attached which classifies it as a bus and states that this vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety standards on the date of manufacture.

To cite an example of our dilemma, on February 6, 1992, I had to use private automobiles to transport 12 students to a competitive event in Knoxville (some 40 miles) while the van could only be used to carry our computer equipment. No students were allowed to ride in the van. This is the same problem that our athletic teams face on a regular basis while their vans sit parked or carry their equipment. The burden of getting transportation has

placed many restrictions upon our curricula and extra-curricula activities. Our students stand again to be the losers in the whole matter. I am already faced with finding suitable transportation for my students to their state competition in Nashville on March 12-14, and the national competition in Cincinnati in late April. This is a similar problem faced by Several of my colleagues in our county and apparently across the state.

I would greatly appreciate your assistance in investigating this matter. Please let me know if I can supply additional information. You may reach me at (615) 562-9118 (school) or (615) 562-1303 (home). You can reach the vocational director Sharon Mills, at (615) 562-8377.

Sincerely yours,

Clarence Lowe, Instructor Office Education/Computer Technology

Letter dated 3/20/92

To: Congressman John Duncan House of Representatives 115 Cannon Building Washington, D.C. 20515

Attention: Ms. Judy Whitbred

Dear Congressman Duncan:

In 1975 the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) amended its definition of a school bus to include vehicles that are "likely to be significantly used" for pupil transportation. The memo, in an effort to further clarify the agency's action, noted that "VAN TYPE VEHICLES, USED FOR MANY PURPOSES, WILL BE PARTICULARLY AFFECTED BY THE NEW AMENDMENT --- SINCE THEY ARE NOT DESIGNED FOR, OR INTENDED TO BE USED AS, A PRIMARY SOURCE OF TRANSPORTATION FOR SCHOOL CHILDREN. THE AMENDMENT MAKES THE VANS SUBJECT TO FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS (FMVSS) if they are SOLD FOR USE AS A SCHOOL BUS". (The effective date of this amendment to the Motor vehicle and School Bus Safety Act, AS AMENDED IN 1974, is OCTOBER 27, 1976). (See Attachment #1)

The FORD RENT-A-CAR SYSTEM, a division of the FORD MOTOR COMPANY, issued a bulletin (FRCS Bulletin #923) to its members instructing them not to rent their CLUB WAGONS and SUPER WAGONS for the transportation of PRE PRIMARY, PRIMARY OR SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS to and from school or school related events since they fall, by virtue of their seating capacity, within the definition of a bus. (Ten (10) capacity or greater) (49 Code of Federal Regulations S 571.3). (See Attachment #2)

In November 1990, we issued a follow-up memo on the subject to all Superintendents/Directors of schools with programs of pupil transportation service in an effort to bring them into total compliance with the provisions of this NHTSA Amendment. (See Attachment #3)

The memo, perhaps, understandably became one of the most, if not the most, controversial memos ever issued from this office for several reasons. In the first place, the use of van type vehicles for school transportation purposes dates from the years of World War II when it was virtually impossible to purchase newly manufactured, or even factory reconditioned, buses. In the next place, these units (VANS) are much more "economical" to purchase than the specially constructed "VAN CONVERSIONS" hence the basis of their growing popularity among school officials as "extracurricular vehicles". Finally, school officials are hard pressed to find accidental data that conclusively supports this highly questionable action on the part of the NHTSA. Few, if any, can document, from personal experience in their own school systems, multifatality accidents involving their useage. They have no problem, however, detailing accidents, though fortunately not multi-fatal at this time, involving the operation of passenger cars, station wagons and other type vehicles placed in service to compensate for their loss.

As the State Director of Pupil Transportation, I have no alternative, as I see it, but to comply with such Federal Regulations unless directed to do otherwise which is something that I do not see forthcoming. I must, therefore, continue my enforcement efforts until the amendment is withdrawn by the NHTSA, which is something else that I do forsee as happening.

Again, thank you for your interest in pupil transportation and for your efforts to assist our school officials in maintaining an "acceptable" level of service for their public school children.

Sincerely yours,

Ernest Farmer, Director of Pupil Transportation

cc: Wayne Qualls Captain Ralph Swift

NHTSA 12/30/75 press release

Concerns the definition of school bus. (Text omitted)

ID: nht95-7.58

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 11, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Carrie Stabile

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 8/29/95 letter from Carrie Stabile and James V. Stabile III to NHTSA Office of Chief Council

TEXT: This responds to the letter from you and your brother James Stabile regarding a "Vehicle Illuminated Warning System" that you wish to market for school buses. You have asked for its "review with regards to Vehicle Safety Standards."

While your cover letter did not describe your Warning System in detail, it appears from your enclosed sketches that the system consists of panels centered in the front and rear headers through which the bus operator may provide certain illuminated messages to other drivers. These are "School Bus" (in green), "Slow Down" (yellow), and "Do Not Pass" (red).

You indicated to Dee Fujita of my staff that you might design the system such that the messages are automatically activated in certain circumstances. You are considering designing the system such that the "School Bus" message would be illuminated while the vehicle is moving, "Slow Down" would show when the school bus driver brakes, and "Do Not Pass" when the vehicle's red lamps are activated. The message board is rimmed by small yellow and red lamps. The small yellow lamps would flash with the Slow Down message and the small red lamps would flash with "Do Not Pass."

The short answer is there is no Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) that specifies requirements for your Warning System. However, as explained below, your system is regarded as supplementary lighting equipment, which subjects it to certain requirements. Further, the States have the authority to regulate the use of school buses, including how the vehicles are identified. Thus, States might have requirements affecting whether your message board is permitted on school buses operating in each jurisdiction.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by Congress (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of equipment. n1 NHTSA has used this authority to issue Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, our statute establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on our understanding of the information you provided.

n1 NHTSA also has the authority to investigate safety-related defects. Manufacturers of motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (such as your Warning System) must ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects.

To answer your letter, we will first discuss the Federal lighting requirements that apply to your system generally. Following that, we will discuss specific issues about your system.

General lighting requirements

In addition to the lighting equipment required for ordinary buses, paragraph S4.1.4 of Standard No. 108 requires school buses to be equipped with a system of four red signal lamps, or four red and four amber signal lamps, designed to conform to SAE Standard J887 School Bus Red Signal Lamps, July 1964, and installed at the top and evenly spaced from the vertical centerline of the bus. These lamps must flash alternately at a rate of 60-120 cycles per minute. All other required lighting equipment, except for turn signals and hazard warning signals, must be steady-burning.

Supplementary lighting equipment is permissible under the following conditions. If your Warning System is to be installed by a manufacturer or dealer before the first sale and delivery of the school bus, the Warning System must not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 including the signal system mentioned above, that is to say, it cannot replace required equipment, or modify its performance or detract from the "message" that the required lamp is intended to impart. Manufacturers of motor vehicles are required to affix a certification to the vehicle that it complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and the determination of impairment is to be made by the manufacturer at that time. A dealer installing the Warning System is regarded as an alterer, and required to affix its own certification that the vehicle as altered continues to conform; at that point, the dealer installing the system would make its determination that impairment did not exist. NHTSA will not contest a determination unless it is clearly erroneous.

If the Warning System is to be installed on school buses already delivered and in use, there is no Federal requirement that the person adding the equipment certify the vehicle. However, there is a similar obligation to ensure continuing compliance. If the person is a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business, under a statute that we administer, that person must ensure that installation and use of the Warning System will not "make inoperative" any of the required lighting equipment including the school bus signal lamp system. We regard "making inoperative" in this context the equivalent of "impairment" discussed in the previous paragraph.

The statute permits an exception to the above: modifications of any nature made by the school bus owner itself in its own repair facilities are not prohibited by our statute.

Specific issues concerning "impairment"

As noted above, the Warning System may be installed on new school buses if it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. "Impairment" can occur in different ways. One way could be by interfering with the performance of required lamp system, including the required school bus warning lamps or the brake warning lamps. The following are examples of interference: * Your system could not replace the identification lamps required by Standard No. 108.

* It must not cause the yellow-red warning system to flash sequentially, rather than alternately as required by the standard.

* The Warning System must not cause the flashing of lights that must be steady-burning (e.g., the stop and taillamps, which, under Standard No. 108, must be steady-burning at all times). Your system appears to have a deceleration warning system operating through either original equipment lamps or supplementary ones. The lamps for the system must be steady-burning, and cannot flash. For the same reason, the little lights around the message board must not flash with the "Slow Down" and "Do Not Pass" messages.

"Impairment" can also occur when an operator is distracted from the driving task, even momentarily. For this reason, we have discouraged the concept of message boards over the years. However, this is the first time we have been asked to consider it in the context of school bus lighting. We find that there are considerations that are relevant to the operation of school buses, that do not apply to other vehicles. A driver behind a school bus, or approaching from an opposite direction, is more likely to be cautious because of the awareness of the importance of child safety and the penalties involved in infractions of traffic laws relating to school buses. There is less possibility of impairment existing with advisories relating directly to the actions other drivers are presumably anticipating when in the vicinity of a school bus. With this in mind, we believe your message board, which sends only three messages -- an identification of the vehicle as "School Bus" and advisories of "Slow Down" and "Do Not Pass" -- generally would be permitted under Standard No. 108.

There are a number of specific features about your message board, however, that could distract a driver, and thus constitute "impairment." These are as follows:

* Your sketch indicates that the lamps used for the "School Bus" message would be green. Standard No. 108 restricts the color of required exterior lights to red, amber, and white, the former two of which are associated with caution. Green is not used as an exterior lighting color because it is the recognized signal to proceed rather than to warn. We believe that use of the color green has the potential to create a measure of confusion rather than caution, thereby affecting the effectiveness of the mandatory lighting equipment.

* Another feature that could distract a driver is the message "Slow Down," which automatically illuminates anytime the school bus driver brakes. We believe this could be confusing to drivers in other lanes and oncoming vehicles, since it may lead some drivers to believe the school bus is preparing to stop, when the bus is not. A less confusing feature would be if the Slow Down message is illuminated only when the amber school bus warning lamps flash, and not each time the driver brakes.

State requirements Because your Warning System is not a Federally required item of lighting equipment, its use is also subject to regulation under the laws of the States in which it may be used. Each State regulates the use of school buses in its highway safety programs, setting requirements for pupil transportation safety, including the identification of school buses. NHTSA has issued a number of Highway Safety Program Guidelines for States to use in establishing their highway safety programs. Guideline No. 17, "Pupil Transportation Safety" (copy enclosed) has recommendation that might affect your message board, if the State has decided to adopt the recommendation as State law. The Guideline recommends that school buses should, among other things,

Be identified with the words "School Bus" printed in letters not less than eight inches high, located between the warning signal lamps as high as possible without impairing visibility of the lettering from both front and rear, and have no other lettering on the front or rear of the vehicle, except as required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), 49 CFR part 571. (Section IV.B.1.a.)

Depending on the requirements a State has adopted for identifying school buses, the State might limit how your message board displays the words "School Bus," and the "Slow Down" and "Do Not Pass" messages. If you have questions about State law requirements, we suggest you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for an opinion. Its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

We appreciate the interest that you and your brother have shown in improving the safety of school children. If you have any further questions, you may call Dee Fujita (202-366-2992) or Taylor Vinson of this office (202-366-5263).

ID: 1211c

Ms. Carrie Stabile
85 Sedge Road
Valley Cottage, NY 10989

Dear Ms. Stabile:

This responds to the letter from you and your brother James Stabile regarding a "Vehicle Illuminated Warning System" that you wish to market for school buses. You have asked for its "review with regards to Vehicle Safety Standards."

While your cover letter did not describe your Warning System in detail, it appears from your enclosed sketches that the system consists of panels centered in the front and rear headers through which the bus operator may provide certain illuminated messages to other drivers. These are "School Bus" (in green), "Slow Down" (yellow), and "Do Not Pass" (red).

You indicated to Dee Fujita of my staff that you might design the system such that the messages are automatically activated in certain circumstances. You are considering designing the system such that the "School Bus" message would be illuminated while the vehicle is moving, "Slow Down" would show when the school bus driver brakes, and "Do Not Pass" when the vehicle's red lamps are activated. The message board is rimmed by small yellow and red lamps. The small yellow lamps would flash with the Slow Down message and the small red lamps would flash with "Do Not Pass."

The short answer is there is no Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) that specifies requirements for your Warning System. However, as explained below, your system is regarded as supplementary lighting equipment, which subjects it to certain requirements. Further, the States have the authority to regulate the use of school buses, including how the vehicles are identified. Thus, States might have requirements affecting whether your message board is permitted on school buses operating in each jurisdiction.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by Congress (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of equipment. NHTSA has used this authority to issue Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, our statute establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on our understanding of the information you provided.

To answer your letter, we will first discuss the Federal lighting requirements that apply to your system generally. Following that, we will discuss specific issues about your system.

General lighting requirements In addition to the lighting equipment required for ordinary buses, paragraph S4.1.4 of Standard No. 108 requires school buses to be equipped with a system of four red signal lamps, or four red and four amber signal lamps, designed to conform to SAE Standard J887 School Bus Red Signal Lamps, July 1964, and installed at the top and evenly spaced from the vertical centerline of the bus. These lamps must flash alternately at a rate of 60-120 cycles per minute. All other required lighting equipment, except for turn signals and hazard warning signals, must be steady- burning.

Supplementary lighting equipment is permissible under the following conditions. If your Warning System is to be installed by a manufacturer or dealer before the first sale and delivery of the school bus, the Warning System must not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 including the signal system mentioned above, that is to say, it cannot replace required equipment, or modify its performance or detract from the "message" that the required lamp is intended to impart. Manufacturers of motor vehicles are required to affix a certification to the vehicle that it complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and the determination of impairment is to be made by the manufacturer at that time. A dealer installing the Warning System is regarded as an alterer, and required to affix its own certification that the vehicle as altered continues to conform; at that point, the dealer installing the system would make its determination that impairment did not exist. NHTSA will not contest a determination unless it is clearly erroneous.

If the Warning System is to be installed on school buses already delivered and in use, there is no Federal requirement that the person adding the equipment certify the vehicle. However, there is a similar obligation to ensure continuing compliance. If the person is a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business, under a statute that we administer, that person must ensure that installation and use of the Warning System will not "make inoperative" any of the required lighting equipment including the school bus signal lamp system. We regard "making inoperative" in this context the equivalent of "impairment" discussed in the previous paragraph.

The statute permits an exception to the above: modifications of any nature made by the school bus owner itself in its own repair facilities are not prohibited by our statute.

Specific issues concerning "impairment" As noted above, the Warning System may be installed on new school buses if it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. "Impairment" can occur in different ways. One way could be by interfering with the performance of required lamp systems, including the required school bus warning lamps or the brake warning lamps. The following are examples of interference:

C Your system could not replace the identification lamps required by Standard No. 108.

C It must not cause the yellow-red warning system to flash sequentially, rather than alternately as required by the standard.

C The Warning System must not cause the flashing of lights that must be steady- burning (e.g., the stop and taillamps, which, under Standard No. 108, must be steady- burning at all times). Your system appears to have a deceleration warning system operating through either original equipment lamps or supplementary ones. The lamps for the system must be steady-burning, and cannot flash. For the same reason, the little lights around the message board must not flash with the "Slow Down" and "Do Not Pass" messages.

"Impairment" can also occur when an operator is distracted from the driving task, even momentarily. For this reason, we have discouraged the concept of message boards over the years. However, this is the first time we have been asked to consider it in the context of school bus lighting. We find that there are considerations that are relevant to the operation of school buses, that do not apply to other vehicles. A driver behind a school bus, or approaching from an opposite direction, is more likely to be cautious because of the awareness of the importance of child safety and the penalties involved in infractions of traffic laws relating to school buses. There is less possibility of impairment existing with advisories relating directly to the actions other drivers are presumably anticipating when in the vicinity of a school bus. With this in mind, we believe your message board, which sends only three messages--an identification of the vehicle as "School Bus" and advisories of "Slow Down" and "Do Not Pass"--generally would be permitted under Standard No. 108.

There are a number of specific features about your message board, however, that could distract a driver, and thus constitute "impairment." These are as follows:

C Your sketch indicates that the lamps used for the "School Bus" message would be green. Standard No. 108 restricts the color of required exterior lights to red, amber, and white, the former two of which are associated with caution. Green is not used as an exterior lighting color because it is the recognized signal to proceed rather than to warn. We believe that use of the color green has the potential to create a measure of confusion rather than caution, thereby affecting the effectiveness of the mandatory lighting equipment.

C Another feature that could distract a driver is the message "Slow Down," which automatically illuminates anytime the school bus driver brakes. We believe this could be confusing to drivers in other lanes and oncoming vehicles, since it may lead some drivers to believe the school bus is preparing to stop, when the bus is not. A less confusing feature would be if the Slow Down message is illuminated only when the amber school bus warning lamps flash, and not each time the driver brakes.

State requirements Because your Warning System is not a Federally required item of lighting equipment, its use is also subject to regulation under the laws of the States in which it may be used. Each State regulates the use of school buses in its highway safety programs, setting requirements for pupil transportation safety, including the identification of school buses. NHTSA has issued a number of Highway Safety Program Guidelines for States to use in establishing their highway safety programs. Guideline No. 17, "Pupil Transportation Safety" (copy enclosed) has recommendation that might affect your message board, if the State has decided to adopt the recommendation as State law. The Guideline recommends that school buses should, among other things,

Be identified with the words "School Bus" printed in letters not less than eight inches high, located between the warning signal lamps as high as possible without impairing visibility of the lettering from both front and rear, and have no other lettering on the front or rear of the vehicle, except as required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), 49 CFR part 571. (Section IV.B.1.a.)

Depending on the requirements a State has adopted for identifying school buses, the State might limit how your message board displays the words "School Bus," and the "Slow Down" and "Do Not Pass" messages. If you have questions about State law requirements, we suggest you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for an opinion. Its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

We appreciate the interest that you and your brother have shown in improving the safety of school children. If you have any further questions, you may call Dee Fujita (202-366-2992) or Taylor Vinson of this office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:108 12/11/95

NHTSA also has the authority to investigate safety-related defects. Manufacturers of motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (such as your Warning System) must ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects.

ID: nht95-1.71

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 16, 1995

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

TO: Randall B. Clark

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 1/17/95 LETTER FROM RANDALL B. CLARK TO OFFICE OF VEHICLE SAFETY COMPLIANCE (OCC 10671)

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 17, 1995, to the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. You have asked for a clarification of the stop lamp requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, specifically S5.1.1.27(a), and Tables III and IV.

Your car "has the normal two stop lamps and has a spoiler with a stop lamp built into it." In addition, it "has a stop lamp mounted inside the back window which is not currently hooked up due to the fact that 'Subaru of America' thinks the procedure is a gainst the law." You would like a statement "that an automobile with four stop lamps is perfectly legal in the United States."

For the reasons given below, the legal situation is of sufficient complexity that we cannot provide a blanket statement of this nature. We shall begin with a possible explanation of Subaru's position. We assume that when you refer to Subaru of America you are referring to the manufacturer of your car. In producing and selling your car, Subaru was obliged to conform to Standard No. 108 (and all other applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards), and to certify that it conformed to those standard s. The three provisions of Standard No. 108 that you reference above required Subaru to equip your car with a center highmounted stop lamp in conformance with the photometric performance and location requirements of Standard No. 108. Ordinarily, this w ould be the lamp inside the rear window. When a vehicle has a spoiler in the rear deck area as original equipment, a manufacturer will frequently locate its center stop lamp in the spoiler instead, since the spoiler might partially block a lamp located in the rear window and thereby create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108. We surmise that Subaru, to facilitate the production process, found it preferable to equip all cars with a window mounted lamp, and to disconnect it on vehicles where a lamp is in the spoiler. The spoiler lamp thereby became the conforming lamp required by S5.1.1.27.

In this circumstance, Standard No. 108 treats the window mounted lamp as a supplemental stop lamp. There are no requirements for a supplemental center stop lamp; however, under S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108, any supplemental lamp is permissible, provided t hat it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. The impairment decision is made by a vehicle manufacturer and is reflected in its certification of the vehicle. For whatever reason, Subaru chose to certif y your car with the window stop lamp disconnected.

We do not know whether this represented an affirmative determination by Subaru that the window mounted lamp would impair the effectiveness of other rear lighting equipment (such as overloading the stop lamp circuit and diminishing the light output of the other lamps). But dealers are reluctant to engage in any activity that might negatively affect a manufacturer's certification of compliance. This reluctance is based upon a statutory prohibition forbidding manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and mot or vehicle repair businesses against "making inoperative" equipment on a vehicle already in use, which was installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. In our opinion letters, we have generally equated the "impairment" test for new vehicles with the "inoperative" test for those in use. In short, Subaru or its representative could believe that connecting the inoperative stop lamp might create a noncompliance that did not exist when the vehicle was certified, thereby putting the m in violation of the prohibition directed against modification of safety equipment on used vehicles.

Obviously, another manufacturer could leave the original window lamp connected and offer a spoiler one as well, its certification being a representation that one lamp meets all requirements and that the supplementary one does not create an impairment of any of the required rear lighting equipment. In this circumstance, four stop lamps would be "legal" under Federal law.

The prohibition against modifications does not extend to the vehicle owner. However, NHTSA discourages vehicle owners from making modifications that reduce the safety of their vehicles. Moreover, state law may restrict such modifications.

I hope that this clarifies the situation for you.

ID: 16857.drn

Mr. Howard Magor
Chairman
Aluminum Body Corporation
1600 W. Washington Blvd.
P.O. Box 40
Montebello, CA 90640

Dear Mr. Magor:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether your company's special purpose aluminum body enclosures, used to provide security and environmental control for electronic systems, are motor vehicles. As explained below, the answer is no.

Your letter states that your enclosures are designed to protect equipment used for data acquisition, satellite monitoring and launch control, earth links, virtual reality training devices, data transmission, and for ground systems such as telescopes and aircraft landing systems. You state that although the enclosures "utilize a semi-trailer format" and are built with commercial trailer undercarriages, they are "for the most part" designed for use on fixed sites. The enclosures' use on the highway "is only incidental to their primary purpose." You further wrote that the enclosures are usually pre-positioned, and supported by four or more leveling jacks, when on the site. The jacks provide stability for the equipment in the enclosures.

In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that once on a work site, the enclosures tend to stay there for months. Your customers move the enclosures only to get to the next job, which is also usually of long duration. You stated that you are aware of an instance where one of your enclosures was placed at the end of an airport runway for several years.

NHTSA's regulations apply only to "motor vehicles," within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6). That section defines "motor vehicle" as:

a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.

Based on your description, we believe that your company's enclosures are not motor vehicles. This is based on the use of the vehicles. The on-highway use of the product is similar to that of mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, which the agency has determined are not "motor vehicles." Such equipment typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site and use the highway only to move between job sites. In such cases, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. (In contrast are instances where vehicles, such as dump trucks, frequently use the highway going to and from job sites, and stay at a job site for only a limited time. Such vehicles are considered motor vehicles for purposes of NHTSA's statute, since the on-highway use is more than "incidental.") Your enclosures stay on job sites for extended periods of time (usually for months) and only use the highway to move from site to site. Because their use of the highway is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicles were manufactured, the enclosures are not motor vehicles.

Because they are not motor vehicles, your enclosures need not meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (49 CFR Part 571), or any other NHTSA regulation. I note that, if the agency were to receive additional information indicating that the enclosures use the roads more than on an incidental basis, then the agency would reassess this interpretation.

Please note that because a State may require equipment such as your enclosures to be registered, you may wish to contact the State in which your product will be sold or used about any State requirements that may apply.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:VSA
d.2/24/98

ID: 16250.ztv

Mr. Gene Trobaugh
President
Whizzer Motorbike Company
1915 Orangewood Avenue, Suite 200
Orange, CA 92868-2047

Dear Mr. Trobaugh:

This is in reply to your Petition to the Administrator dated October 2, 1997, on behalf of a "motor-assisted bicycle."

You request "relief from meeting DOT regulations" for two reasons. The "motor-assisted bicycle" requires human power to start from a static position. It will not exceed 25 miles per hour. In addition, it is designed to accommodate only one person and has less than 2 horsepower.

To respond to your petition, we must first decide whether the Whizzer is a "motor vehicle" and required to comply with the regulations from which you seek to be excused. Under our safety law, a "motor vehicle" is a vehicle driven by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on the public streets. With respect to bicycles with motors, we use the term "power-assist" to refer to a vehicle that cannot be driven by the motor alone but which requires muscular input at all times when in motion, assisted when needed by the engine. We do not consider this type of vehicle to be a "motor vehicle" subject to our regulations. If this correctly describes the Whizzer, then your petition is moot. However, if the Whizzer is capable of being propelled by the engine alone with no muscular power required when the engine is engaged, then the Whizzer would be a "motor vehicle", specifically a "motor driven cycle."

The Whizzer's speed capability of 25 miles per hour is somewhat greater than is ordinary for operation by muscular power alone.

Assuming that the Whizzer is a motor vehicle, we cannot by this letter provide blanket relief from DOT regulations. We therefore view your petition as one for rulemaking that would exclude the Whizzer and other vehicles in its class from DOT requirements. The agency's Office of Safety Performance Standards has the responsibility of evaluating and responding to petitions for rulemaking within 120 days of their submission. Accordingly, I am providing them with a copy of your petition for such further action as that Office deems appropriate.

Alternatively, you request relief "from meeting DOT lighting requirements." The reasons for this request is that the Whizzer is best suited for daytime operation and that you do not want to encourage operation at night. In addition, due to its nature, the Whizzer is likely to be used only for casual, recreational riding.

There are two ways to proceed with your petition. We can treat it as a petition for rulemaking to be considered with your primary petition for relief from compliance with all DOT regulations. That is the simplest way to proceed, and we shall do so unless instructed by you to the contrary.

The second way is to treat it as a petition for temporary exemption from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. However, your petition does not contain the information required by the agency's regulation 49 CFR Part 555. There are four bases on which temporary exemptions are granted. If immediate compliance would cause substantial economic hardship to a manufacturer that has tried in good faith to comply with Standard No. 108, an exemption of up to three years may be granted, provided that the total vehicle production of the manufacturer in the year preceding the filing of its application did not exceed 10,000 units. If an exemption from Standard No. 108 would facilitate the development and field evaluation of a low-emission vehicle or one with innovative safety features and would not unduly degrade the safety level of the vehicle, or if, in the absence of an exemption from Standard No. 108, a manufacturer would be unable to sell a vehicle whose overall level of safety is equal to or exceeds that of a non-exempted vehicle, an exemption of up to two years may be granted which would apply to not more than 2,500 vehicles a year. The exemption process takes three to four months after a petition is received that meets the requirements of Part 555.

If you wish further information on this exemption procedure, you may telephone Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). Further correspondence on petitions for rulemaking should be directed to L. Robert Shelton, Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:571
d.11/17/97

ID: nht68-4.8

DATE: 09/03/68

FROM: JOHN A. MCLAINE -- DEPT. OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY, DIV. OF MOTOR VEHICLES, NEW JERSEY

TO: National Highway Safety Bureau

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: As requested, we are enclosing a copy of the letter we wrote to Mr. Paul L. Nine of the Chrysler Corporation after he sent us literature describing the Dodge "Super-Lite".

Since receiving our letter, Mr. Nine has told us that the "Super-Lite" does not conform to the SAE Standards.

SAE J582 states that the color of the light from a supplementary passing lamp must be white. The light from the "Super-Lite" is blue when the person looking at the light is in certain positions in front of the light. When a driver looks into his rear-view mirror and the vehicle behind is equipped with a "Super-Lite" the driver sees a blue light in his rear-view mirror.

New Jersey and many other States have regulations restricting the use of a blue light on the front of a motor vehicle to a motor vehicle operated by a volunteer fireman on his way to a fire, and for other emergency purposes.

SAE J582 also states that for greatest visibility, with reasonable limitations of glare to approaching drivers, the left edge of the stray light immediately to the left of the high intensity zone should be aimed at the vertical line through the lamp center, at 25 feet.

The "Super-Lite" does not meet this requirement because the left edge of the high intensity zone of the "Super-Lite" is aimed 5 1/4" to the left of the vertical line through the lamp center at 25 feet.

I suggested to Mr. Nine that if the color of the "Super-Lite" could be made to conform to the SAE Standard, perhaps we could aim the "Super-Lite" in New Jersey to conform to the SAE requirement. Mr. Nine said that this would not be satisfactory because it would destroy the purpose of "Super-Lite".

The Chrysler engineers also told me that they do not recommend that the "Super-Lite" be used on two-lane highways. I do not know how such a restriction could be enforced to insure maximum safety.

According to the literature, the "Super-Lite" was designed to bridge the gap between high and low beam lights. Our experience has shown that where traffic density permits the use of high beam lights there is no need for additional lighting and when traffic density requires the use of low beam lights there is no need for additional lighting because the tail lights and head lights of the vehicles ahead provide ample guidance.

In spite of the fact that "Super-Lite" does not meet the SAE Standards, Mr. Nine does not believe we can prohibit the use of this light in New Jersey because of Federal Law 89-563 which requires that no State shall have any safety standard applicable to the same item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal Standard.

As you know, Federal Standard 108 requires headlamps, tail lamps, stop lamps, license plate lamps, parking lamps, back-up lamps, turn signal lamps, side marker lamps, and reflectors in accordance with SAE Standards and recommended practices.

Section S 3.1.2 of Standard 108 states that no additional lamp, reflective device and associated equipment shall be installed if it impairs the effectiveness of the required equipment. Mr. Nine believes the Federal Government allows the "Super-Lite under the above section.

We do not believe the Federal Government should permit the use of a driving light which does not meet the SAE Standards, especially since all other motor vehicle lighting equipment is required to meet the SAE Standards. We also believe that the NHSB should have tests made to make certain that the use of auxiliary lights does not impair the effectiveness of the required equipment, and does not increase the danger caused by glare and confusion with various types of emergency lighting equipment.

Your comments will be appreciated.

ID: nht90-1.8

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 8, 1990

FROM: Ron Marion -- Sales Engineer, Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TO: Cal Karl -- Commercial Vehicle Section

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to memo dated 11-28-8? from C. Karl to All School Bus LCR II's; Also attached to letter dated 11-27-90 from P.J. Rice to C. Karl (A36; Std. 217); Also attached to letter dated 12-7-82 from F. Berndt to M.B. Mathieson; Also attached to letter dated 1-29-90 from C. Karl to M. Shaw (OCC 4403); Also attached to letter dated 1-18-90 from R. E. Meadows

TEXT:

This letter is in response to the Department of Public Safety memo recently printed in the January MSBOA newsletter.

As a bus body manufacturer we offer "Vandalocks" on both the emergency door(s) and service door of our products.

The service door Vandalock is a key activated handle located on the front of the vehicle. When the service door is closed the safety catch holds the door closed. The door cannot be opened from outside the vehicle. The front Vandalock allows the door t o be opened from outside by the use of a cam which releases the safety catch. Please note - the standard entrance door without a Vandalock cannot be opened from outside if the safety catch is engaged.

This front Vandalock is not connected to the ignition interlock for several reasons:

1. Federal standards only require the emergency doors (as listed in S5.2.3.1.) to be equipped with the interlock.

2. The door is only locked from the outside; not from the inside. Anyone can get out the door from the inside even if the Vandalock is in the locked position.

For this reasoning we feel we comply with Rule 3520.5010 subparagraph 2 for the front door because we are in compliance with FMVSS 217.

The Thomas Vandalock for emergency doors utilizes a "slide bolt" lock located on the inside of the door which is connected to an ignition interlock. The bus may not be started with the door "locked". The door may be locked once the bus is started; howe ver, a continuous buzzer will sound if the door is locked while the bus is running, thereby notifying the driver of a problem. This slide bolt type lock is equipped with a spring which requires a positive force to engage. This feature will not allow th e lock to become engaged by vibration or during rollover.

Thomas Built Buses has been using this type of Vandalock for at least 15 years (if not longer) without any problems. We feel we are in compliance

with the FMVSS 217 for the following reasons:

S5.2.3.2. "The engine starting System of a school bus shall not operate if any emergency exit is locked from either inside or outside the bus."

Our Vandalock has the ignition interlock and locks the door from inside the bus.

For purposes of this requirement "locked" means that the release mechanism cannot be activated by a person at the door without a special device such as a key or special information such as a combination."

It has been our interpretation that the words "such as" indicate an example, a key is not required but a "special device" or a combination is not required, but "special information."

As I have interpreted this article in the newsletter, the State of Minnesota will require buses with Vandalocks to only be locked from the outside and/or inside with a key or combination. At this time I am not aware of a Vandalock on emergency doors whi ch meets these requirements.

Vandalocks, as you are aware, are not necessary for the safe operation of school buses. They are provided at the customer's request to deter vandalism when the vehicles are parked.

There probably are numerous school buses in Minnesota which are equipped with Vandalocks which do not meet the 7/1/89 regulations which are now going to be required to be removed at the customer's expense.

We at Thomas Built Buses would like for you to reconsider the 7/1/89 regulation to allow our present Vandalock system to be acceptable.

Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.