ID: nht92-7.5

DATE: May 14, 1992 EST

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John Faist -- DAS Fleet Services Division, City of Seattle

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/4/92 from Chris Kuczynski to Manager, NHTSA (OCC 6983)

TEXT:

This responds to the letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) from Chris Kuczynski of your Division, asking how the provisions of 49 CFR Parts 554-557, 565-568, 571, 573, 576, 577, and 579 pertain to "a municipal government agency that transfers, modifies and/or fabricates custom vehicle bodies for use by its own departments." In a telephone conversation with Walter Myers of this office, you stated that the operations referred to in the letter involve only trucks, both light and heavy; that you combine both new and used bodies with both new and used chassis, endeavoring to retain the old engines, power axles, and transmissions to the extent possible; that such operations include mounting equipment on truck chassis to create such specific-purpose vehicles as dump trucks, cranes, and the like; and that some of the operations are done in your own shops while others are contracted out to local body shops. The issues raised in your letter are addressed below.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et sec.; Safety Act) authorizes this agency to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Under the Safety Act, manufacturers are required to certify that their products meet all applicable safety standards.

NHTSA's safety standards are set forth at 49 CFR Part 571. The agency has also established a number of other regulations in carrying out its responsibilities under the Safety Act, including ones related to certification. All of the regulations cited in your letter apply to manufacturers of motor vehicles and/or motor vehicle equipment.

The Safety Act also prohibits commercial establishments such as repair businesses from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in or on a vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. This provision does not apply to the situation of vehicle owners modifying their own used vehicles.

The issue of whether NHTSA's safety standards and other regulations would apply to your agency with respect to the operations it performs on a particular vehicle is dependent on the answers to two questions: (1) whether the vehicle in question is considered a "motor vehicle" under the Safety Act, and (2) whether the operations are of such a nature that your agency is considered a "manufacturer" of the vehicle under the Safety Act.

With respect to the first of these questions, NHTSA has jurisdiction over "motor vehicles" as that term is defined by the Safety Act. I note that some vehicles which may be operated by a municipal agency are not considered motor

vehicles. These include airport runway vehicles and certain, but not all, construction and maintenance equipment. NHTSA's safety standards and related regulations do not have any applicability with respect to vehicles that are not considered motor vehicles. I have enclosed copies of two previous letters which should enable you to determine which of the vehicles you perform operations on are considered motor vehicles under the Safety Act (August 8, 1988 letter to Caterpillar Tractor Co. and February 25, 1986 letter to Richard F. Hahn, Esq.).

While NHTSA's safety standards and other regulations do not generally apply to modifications made by vehicle owners to their used vehicles, it is possible for such modifications to be so substantial that the resulting vehicle is considered a new vehicle instead of just a modified used vehicle. In this case, the new vehicle is required to meet all applicable safety standards in effect on its date of manufacture, just like every other new vehicle. This date would be the date such substantial modifications are completed.

In order to enable vehicle modifiers to determine when the modifications are so substantial that the vehicle is considered a new vehicle, NHTSA established specific criteria at 49 CFR Part 571.7(e), Combining new and used components. That section reads as follows:

When a new cab is used in the assembly of a truck, the truck will be considered newly manufactured . . . unless the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) (as a minimum) of the assembled vehicle are not new, and at least two of these components were taken from the same vehicle.

NHTSA has consistently interpreted that provision to mean that, by its terms, it applies only to new bodies and not to old ones, and that placing a new body on an old chassis does not produce a new vehicle so long as the engine, transmission, and drive axles, as a minimum, are not new AND at least two of these three listed components were taken from the same vehicle. Conversely, a new vehicle would result by placing a new body on an old chassis utilizing new, a combination of new and used, or used engine, transmission, and drive axles no two of which were taken from the same vehicle.

A new vehicle would also result by placing a body, new or used, on a new chassis. In that case the new chassis is an incomplete vehicle which is defined at 49 CFR Part 568.3 as:

(A)n assemblage consisting, as a minimum, of frame and chassis structure, powertrain, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations, other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed vehicle.

By adding a body to the new chassis, your agency would become a final-stage manufacturer, defined in Part 568.3 as "a person who performs such manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a completed vehicle." Final-stage manufacturers are required to certify that the completed vehicle conforms with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle, the date of final

completion, or a date between those two dates.

I hope this information is helpful. For your additional information, I am enclosing a NHTSA fact sheet entitled "INFORMATION FOR NEW MANUFACTURERS OF MOTOR VEHICLES AND MOTOR VEHICLE EQUIPMENT." If you have any further questions with regard to this matter, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 17384.drn

Steve Cox, President
Cox Chevrolet
2900 Cortez Road West
Bradenton, FL 34207-1191

Dear Mr. Cox:

This responds to your letter regarding the use of 15-passenger vans by a dance studio to pick up school children from school "five days a week" to transport to the studio. You ask whether the vans are "school buses" under Federal law. As explained below, a new 15-passenger van leased for such a purpose is a school bus. When your dealership leases new buses to the dance studio for this purpose, the dealership must lease only buses that meet Federal motor vehicle safety standards for school buses.

In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that your dealership leases three 15-passenger vans to Ms. Ellen Meade, who owns Ellen Meade Studios, a "Professional School for the Performing Arts."⁽¹⁾ You also provided copies of the three passenger van lease agreements, with each lease agreement describing the vehicle as "new."

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles, including school buses. In 1974, Congress enacted legislation directing NHTSA to issue safety standards on specific aspects of school bus safety.

Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112 requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable standards. Under our regulations, a "bus" is any vehicle, including a van, that has a seating capacity of 11 persons or more. Our statute defines a "school bus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying 11 or more persons and which is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events (emphasis added). 49 U.S.C. 30125. Therefore, a 15-passenger van that is likely to be used significantly to transport students is a "school bus."

If the new van is sold or leased to transport students (e.g., leased on a regular or long-term basis), the vehicle must meet NHTSA's school bus standards. Conventional 15-passenger vans cannot be certified as doing so, and thus cannot be sold or leased, as new vehicles, to carry students on a regular basis.

In your situation, Ms. Meade writes that she is using the vans to "retriev[e] children from the area schools for our after school program." It is therefore clear Ms. Meade's studio is using the vans to pick the students up "from school."

Whether the buses are "used significantly" to transport the students is an issue that the agency finds appropriate to resolve case-by-case, focusing on the intended use of the vehicle. In your case, we note Ms. Meade's letter states that the vehicles are used "five days a week" in picking up students from schools. In our view, such regular use of the vehicle to pick up students "from school" (even if the same students are not transported each of the five days), would constitute a "significant" use of the vehicle. Therefore, when leasing new buses to Ellen Meade Studios for the purpose of picking up students from school, you must lease buses that meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to "school buses."

As you may be aware, in interpretation letters of May 29, 1991 and September 6, 1991 to Ms. Vel McCaslin, Director of Grace After School, an after school care program, NHTSA stated that buses used to transport children to Ms. McCaslin's program would be "school buses" only if the program is a "school or school-related event." The September 1991 letter indicated that the program picks up children from three area schools and brings them to the church on a "daily" basis. These letters concluded that Grace After School did not appear to be a "school," that the program was not a "school-related event," and that NHTSA's school bus requirements thus did not apply. NHTSA has reexamined the two letters to Ms. McCaslin in view of your letter. Upon reconsideration, we have decided that the letters to Ms. McCaslin did not focus enough on the fact that the buses were being used to transport school children "from school," as specified in 49 U.S.C. 30125. Therefore, to the extent the May 29, 1991 and September 6, 1991 letters to Ms. McCaslin are inconsistent with this letter, they are hereby superceded.

We note that you have included a letter from Ms. Meade to you in which she seeks advice about "what to do." Requirements for the use of a motor vehicle are determined by State law, so Florida's requirements should be consulted to determine how students must be transported to and from school or school-related activities. In addition, NHTSA believes that school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country, and therefore strongly recommends that all buses that are used to transport school children be certified as meeting NHTSA's school bus safety standards. Using 15-passenger vans that do not meet the school bus standards to transport students could result in increased liability in the event of a crash. Since such liability would be determined by State law, you and Ms. Meade may wish to consult with an attorney or insurance carrier for advice on this issue.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
cc: Ms. Ellen Meade
Ellen Meade Studios
1323 63rd Avenue East
Bradenton, FL 34203
cc: Ms. Vel McCaslin, Director
Grace After School
10221 Ella Lee at Sam Houston Tollway
Houston, TX 77042

ref:VSA#571.3
d.6/1/98

1. It is unclear whether the dealership's representative arranging the leases knew that Ms. Meade owned a studio and that she intended to use the vans to transport her dance students from schools.

ID: nht76-5.43

DATE: 03/19/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: F. A. McNiel

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: On February 12, 1976, this agency denied your petition to amend S4.5.4 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to read:

"The stoplamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes, or by other beneficial means which will not impair the lighting system or the mechanical functioning of the vehicle."

You have now re-petitioned us on February 16, 1976, to amend S4.5.4 to read:

"The stoplamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes. This action may be supplemented by other beneficial means which will improve the performance of the stoplamps without impairing the lighting system or the mechanical functioning of the vehicle."

This petition is unnecessary, because as you have now worded your suggested amendment it essentially reflects the present requirements of the standard. We do not view S4.5.4 as prohibiting a means of stoplamp activation supplemental to activation by application of the service brakes.

Any supplemental lighting device, however, is subject to the general prohibition of S4.1.3 against installation of motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. For example, a positioning device that activates the stoplamps whenever the accelerator pedal is released would impair the effectiveness of the stoplamps by providing an ambiguous signal, as release of the accelerator does not always signify that the vehicle operator intends to brake.

You also questioned whether NHTSA desires to see improvements in motor vehicle stoplamp systems. Docket No. 74-5 represented a tenative effort to provide better systems on an optional basis, but on the basis of comments to the docket and our research contracts, we are re-evaluating the entire subject. Your denial must also be considered in this context, and at the present time radical changes in rear lighting are simply premature.

The remainder of your letter was also of interest. Dr. Haddon remarked that performance standards afford the private sector optimum flexibility in designing to meet the Federal standards. His comment reflected a statutory mandate which this agency continues to adhere to in its rulemaking actions. However, as I wrote you on February 12, any performance standard is design restrictive to some extent, with the restrictions ideally only as narrow as reasonably necessary to achieve the desired safety performance. In some areas (e.g. the occupant protection provisions for vehicle interiors in impacts, Standard No. 201) a great deal of design freedom is afforded, while others (e.g. the headlighting requirements of Standard No. 108) may be quite restrictive because safety-related factors such as availability of replacements, uniformity of color and location, and detection of function are more important than design freedom.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

F. A. McNeil 611 Bouldin Avenue Austin, Texas 78704

FEBRUARY 16, 1976

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

Appeal of Petition Denial - Re: N40-30

Gentlemen:

In reply to your letter of February 12, 1976 wherein you deny my petition for the correction of subsection S4.5.4 and S4.6 (b) as set forth by the existing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, I offer the following comments.

In relation to S4.5.4, I agree with your statement that a signal to other drivers that the service brakes are being applied is precisely the performance being sought in S4.5.4. The possibility of an improvement over this 'one shot' stoplamp warning system is what I am endeavoring to get incorporated into Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, subsection S4.5.4.

As for subsection S4.6 (b) I agree that from the standpoint of traffic safety there is no need for the amendment that I have proposed. My proposal was based primarily on economy. If for any conceivable reason the flashing of the headlamps and the side marker lamps for signaling purposes could enhance traffic safety, cutting a flasher unit directly into the existing lighting circuit would be much less costly than the installation of the additional wiring and switching means that would be required to isolate the headlamps and the side marker lamps from the conventional lighting circuit.

My suggested amendment to S4.5.4 stated - "The stoplamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes, or by other beneficial means which will not impair the lighting system or the mechanical functioning of the vehicle." - I regret that my choice of wording could be construed to indicate any intent that activation of the stoplamps upon application of the service brakes could be deleted under any circumstances. Such an act would very definitely impair the vehicle's lighting system, and so would therefore be unacceptable under such revised standard. - However, to make my proposal crystal clear, I am rephrasing my petition to amend FMVSS No. 108, subsection S4.5.4 to read as follows --

"The stoplamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes. This action may be supplemented by other beneficial means which will improve the performance of the stoplamps without impairing the lighting system or the mechanical functioning of the vehicle."

Such an amendment would provide a standard against which any means that would improve the performance of a vehicle's stoplamp warning system could be tested -- such as a means to signal other drivers that the brakes are going to be applied (prior to the time of the actual application of the brakes) in the event that a 'panic' or other sudden stop is going to be made.

The reason cited for denying my petition for amendment of S4.5.4 was - "Since the requirement is limited to the desired safety performance, we find it valid" - Does this statement mean - as it implies - that the NHTSA has no desire to see any improvement in a motor vehicle's antiquated stop warning system? - I find this to be extremely odd in view of the fact that your department previously informed me that "rear end collisions account for 10 per cent of the fatal motor vehicle accidents and 49 per cent of all motor motor vehicle accidents". - As for validity, the reasons for your denial of my petition are certainly not valid in relation to the statements made by Director Haddon December 14, 1967.

Again, I strongly urge that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration approve my revised petition for the amendment of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No.108, subsection S4.5.4 as set forth above.

Respectfully,

Fred A. McNiel Traffic Safety Advocate

copy: Hon. J. J. Pickle

ID: nht68-3.12

DATE: 01/26/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Roger H. Compton: NHTSA

TO: Fire Department, Lynn, Massachusetts

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of December 12, 1967, you questioned several requirements of Initial Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as applied to fire trucks.

Paragraph S3.1.1.3, which permits the installation of additional equipment if it does not impair the effectiveness of the required equipment, will not prohibit the installation of rotary flashing lights on fire trucks. Therefore, a waiver of this clause is not necessary for fire trucks.

Paragraph S3.5 a revised by the latest amendment to Standard No. 108, and issued December 11, 1967, (copy enclosed), permits the flashing of steady-burning lamps for signalling purposes. Therefore, the flashing of side marker and clearance lamps on fire trucks to signify an emergency vehicle will not be prohibited by the requirements of this paragraph.

Standard No. 108 does not require that front identification lamps be located on the roof of the vehicle cab, but only that they be "as near as practicable to(Illegible Word) vertical centerlines." If, however, they are mounted on the upper body structure, "no part of the lamps or mountings may extend below the top of the vehicle's windshield." This mounting flexibility will permit a selective location of identification lamps and rotary warning lamps which will not cause the rotary lamps to blot out the identification lamps. Also to be considered is the effectiveness of the identification lamps when the vehicle is operated on the highway and without illumination of the rotary lamps. Therefore, fire trucks need not be excepted from the requirement for front identification lamps.

Rear identification lamps mounted on the edge of or under the rear step of a fire truck will meet the location requirements as specified in Standard No. 108. Adequate guards or protective shields are available and commonly used on lamps located in these positions. Therefore, fire trucks need not be excepted from the requirement for rear identification lamps.

If you have any further comments or questions on the requirements of Standard No. 108, I hope you will let us know.

ID: 86-1.15

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 31, 1986

FROM: Erika Z. Jones -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Clennie H. Murphy, Jr. -- Acting Associate Commissioner, Head Start Bureau

TITLE: School Bus Regulations of the NHTSA and Head Start Buses

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/27/85 from Jeffrey R. Miller to Charles Pekow; Also attached to letter dated 8/21/92 from Paul J. Rice to Chuck Anderson (A39; VSA 103 (i))

TEXT:

The purpose of this memorandum is to comment on the draft memorandum you provided us which discusses our requirements under Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, to further clarify our regulations for school buses.

On October 25, 1985, Mr. Hilton Baines, Program Director for Region VII, Department of Public Health and Human Services, requested information from you on the applicability of HSPS No. 17 to Head Start programs. Mr. Baines referred to a "Day Car U.S.A." newsletter which stated that, in 1977, NHTSA determined that buses used to transport children to and from Head Start facilities are considered school buses and must meet all Federal school bus safety standards. This statement is essentially correct. However, in continuing its discussion of NHTSA's requirements, the newsletter expanded on the requirements of "Standard 17," without properly distinguishing a discussion of this standard from the "Federal school bus safety standards" to which it had referred previously. In so doing, the newsletter implied that NHTSA requires buses used by Head Start facilities to meet all requirements of Highway Program Standard No. 17. Mr. Baines asked whether NHTSA does indeed require this of Head Start buses.

Unfortunately, the implication made in the newsletter is misleading. Its determination that HSPS No. 17 is binding on Head Start buses apparently resulted from confusing two separate sets of regulations for school buses that were issued by NHTSA under different Acts of Congress. Our motor vehicle safety standards for school buses ("the Federal school bus safety standards") were issued under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C 1381 et seq.; hereinafter "the Vehicle Safety Act"), while HSPS No. 17 is part of the series of highway safety program standards NHTSA promulgated under the Highway Safety Act of 1966 (23 U.S.C. 401-408). Both sets have requirements for school buses, but differ in their application.

The Vehicle Safety Act authorizes NHTSA to issue motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. In 1974, Congress amended that Act to direct NHTSA to issue motor vehicle safety standards for various aspects of school bus performance, including emergency exits, windows and windshields, seating systems, and crashworthiness of bus body and frame. The school bus safety standards we issued became effective April 1, 1977, and apply to each school bus manufactured on or after that date. Those standards, together with the other motor vehicle safety standards issued by NHTSA, are set forth in 49 C.F.R. Part 571.

In the 1974 amendment to the Vehicle Safety Act, Congress also directed NHTSA to establish a regulatory definition of "school bus" which encompasses buses which are significantly used to transport "primary, preprimary, or secondary school students" to or from such schools or related events. Our definition of a "school bus" is set forth in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 571.3(b). Under our definitions, a vehicle designed for carrying 11 or more persons (including the driver) is a "bus," and is a "school bus" if sold for school-related events. Head Start centers, whose functions are primarily educational, are considered by NHTSA to be "preprimary schools" falling under the ambit of the Vehicle Safety Act.

The Vehicle Safety Act applies to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, and prohibits the manufacture and sale of any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that does not conform to applicable motor vehicle safety standards. It requires persons selling new buses to schools to ensure that the vehicle complies with all Federal safety standards for school buses. Since Head Start facilities are considered to be "schools," any person selling a new bus (i.e., a motor vehicle designed to carry 11 or more persons) to such schools must sell a complying school bus. If any new bus does not meet those standards, the seller may be required to recall the vehicle and to pay civil penalties. The Vehicle Safety Act, however, does not apply to motor vehicle use, and therefore does not require Head Start centers to USE school buses that comply with the Federal school bus safety standards. The requirements governing the USE of a motor vehicle after it is sold is a matter of state law.

As your draft memorandum stated, NHTSA issued Highway Safety Program Standard (HSPS) No. 17 under the authority of the Highway Safety Act. The standard contains a number of recommendations to the states covering pupil transportation operations, and applies to state highway safety programs receiving Section 402 funds. However, while the requirements of the Vehicle Safety Act are Federal requirements imposed on school bus sellers regardless of state law implementation, NHTSA has provided the states some discretion in adopting HSPS No. 17. A state might be receiving S402 funds under the Highway Safety Act even though its highway safety program requirements for pupil transportation are not identical to those of Standard No. 17.

The applicability of HSPS No. 17 to Head Start center vehicles depends on State adoption of that standard. Individual states have chosen to adopt some or all of the requirements of HSPS No. 17 as part of their own highway safety programs, and a state might have requirements patterned after the recommendations of HSPS No. 17 for the use of school vehicles, including Head Start buses. Those requirements might apply to a Head Start center even though the center might not be a direct recipient of S402 funds. Therefore, the regulations for school vehicle use are those set by the individual states, and a particular state's requirements would determine the operational standards for Head Start center vehicles operating in that state.

ID: nht93-6.43

DATE: September 21, 1993

FROM: Joe Takacs -- Director of Engineering, Kinedyne Corporation

TO: Office of Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: Ref: Final rule amending Standard No. 222 School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection FMVSS; Federal Register/Vol. 58, No. 170/Friday/ September 3, 1993/Rules and Regulations; Docket No. 90-05; Notice 5; 49 CFR Part 571

TEXT:

Based on the above referenced document that denied Kinedyne Corporation's petition but clarified the intent of implementing FMVSS 209 requirements for wheelchair securement systems, we would appreciate your comments on our interpretation of the final rule:

1. The webbing used in Kinedyne Corporation's wheelchair strap assemblies is industrial type 1.00 inch or 2.00 inch wide polyester webbing that meet the strength and other requirements of S4.2 of FMVSS No. 209. Therefore, this webbing is acceptable for use on wheelchair securement systems per FMVSS No.222.

2. The hardware used on Kinedyne Corporation's wheelchair strap assemblies are industrial type 1.00 inch or 2.00 inch overcenter, ratchet or cam buckles; wire hooks; snap hooks and track fittings which meet the strength and other requirements, as specified, in S4.3 of FMVSS No. 209. Therefore, these fittings are acceptable for use on wheelchair securement systems per FMVSS No. 222.

Industrial type webbing and hardware used in our wheelchair securement strap assemblies have been successfully used in wheelchair securement applications for approximately 20 years. We trust that these same assemblies meet the requirements of Amended FMVSS No. 222.

We would appreciate a reply within the next 30 days. Thank you for your assistance.

ID: 1982-3.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/15/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Thatcher Unified Schools

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Max Peck Superintendent Thatcher Unified Schools District No. 4 P.O. Box 610 Thatcher, Arizona 85552

Dear Mr. Peck:

This is in response to your letter of September 30, 1982, enclosing a "petition for exemption...on behalf of Capps and Lancaster Service Center". The petition concerns a single motor vehicle consisting of the body of a 1974 Dodge school bus which has been removed from its original chassis and attached to a new 1981 International Harvester chassis.

This agency does not regulate the use of motor vehicles. That is a matter for State governments. We do enforce the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and grant exemptions as appropriate consistent with our authority.

I regret that the exemption process is not available in your case. Part 555 is intended to cover the future vehicle production of bona fide motor vehicle manufacturers, and not a single conversion, performed in the past, by what appears to be a service garage. Under our regulations, the combination of an old body upon a new chassis results in a new motor vehicle required to meet the motor vehicle safety standards in effect when the chassis was manufactured. Compliance is especially important in this instance because of all the school bus safety standards that have become effective since the bus body was manufactured in 1974, and which affect its structure and that of its seats.

This means that Capps and Lancaster are technically in violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, for which a penalty of up to $1000 may be imposed. We do not intend to pursue this, however, unless other violations come to our attention. However, our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance will be contacting Capps and Lancaster to make them aware of their responsibilities in order to prevent further violations by that company.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

September 30, 1982

Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Gentlemen:

Find enclosed the petition for exemption as executed by Mr. James Capps and Mr. Bill Lancaster on behalf of Capps and Lancaster Service Center. As you can see from the documentation accompanying their petition, they performed extensive labor in the removal and reattachment of the Superior Coach to the new International Harvester chasis. Their efforts and our ability to utilize the Superior Coach have resulted in a substantial economic benefit to the Thatcher Unified School District and therefore to its taxpayers while at the same time providing totally safe and reliable school bus transportation for the district.

Should you have any questions regarding the petition as submitted by Capps and Lancaster, or if we can provide any additional information on behalf of the District, please let us know.

Respectfully,

THATCHER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 4

Max Peck, Superintendent

MP/mb

Enclosures

October 1, 1982 Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590 Gentlemen:

In accordance with Title 49, U.S.C. 555, we herewith make application for temporary exemption from motor vehicle safety standards on behalf of Thatcher Unified School District No. 4, Graham County, Arizona. This petition is based upon the substantial economic hardship which the district would incur if it were not allowed to place into service the 1974 Superior Coach which has been reinstated upon a 1982 International Harvester chasis.

We have attached for your review the following: (1) Original bid dated December 18, 1973, for the Superior body mounted upon the original 1974 Dodge chasis; (2) Specification Sheet from Superior Coach Sales and Service, re: the coach which has now been installed upon the 1982 International Harvester chasis; (3) Minutes of school board meeting authorizing the purchase of the 1974 Dodge bus and chasis; (4) Notice of bid for chasis and specification therefore, re: 1981 or comparable International Harvester chasis; (5) Certificate of title for a 1982 International Harvester chasis and Superior Coach as modified; (6) Copy of warranty, re: International Harvester chasis; (7) Photocopy of check drawn upon Graham County and payable to Capps and Lancaster for parts and materials incurred in the modification and reassembly of the International Harvester chasis and Superior coach.

As you can see from the attached data, the Thatcher Unified School District has already incurred significant expense so as to provide safety and reasonable transportation for its students and at the same time so as to utilize the Superior Coach which was in totally serviceable condition. As work undertaken by us in the detachment of the old chasis and the installation of the new was done in a competent and workman manner and the vehicle was fully tested and evaluated by us prior to its being released to the school district. We believe the granting of this extention for a three year period would would be in the public interest and consistant with the objectives of the National traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act in that the utilization of the Superior Coach which has been competently reinstated upon the new chasis would give the Thatcher Unified School District the benefit of a new and totally safe school bus while at the same time resulting in substantial economic benefit to the tax payers of the district. Therefore, it is requested that you act favorably upon this request and grant a three year exemption for this vehicle.

Respectfully submitted this 1st day of October, 1982.

James Capps Bill Lancaster

ID: 17680.DRN

Mr. Don Cote
Inventory/Fleet Manager
Northside Ford
9800 San Pedro
San Antonio, TX78216

Dear Mr. Cote:

This responds to your letter regarding the use of 15-passenger vans by a child care facility to drop off and pick up school children from school "on regular school days." You ask whether the vans are "school buses" under Federal law. As explained below, a new 15-passenger van sold or leased for such a purpose is a school bus. When your dealership sells or leases new buses for the use you describe, the dealership must sell or lease only buses that meet Federal motor vehicle safety standards for school buses, even when the purchaser is a child care facility.

Your letter explains that you are aware of a child care facility that uses 15-passenger vans to transport children "on a regular basis." In the morning, the child care facility uses the vans to take children from the facility to school. When school is over, the vans are used again to transport the children from school back to the child care facility. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that in the morning, the children's parents drop the children off at the child care facility, and the parents pick the children up from the facility in the evening. The children range in age from kindergarten to junior high school. You explained that by "on a regular basis," you meant that the transportation is provided "on regular school days."

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles, including school buses. In 1974, Congress enacted legislation directing NHTSA to issue safety standards on specific aspects of school bus safety.

Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112 requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable standards. Under our regulations, a "bus" is any vehicle, including a van, that has a seating capacity of 11 persons or more. Our statute defines a "school bus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying 11 or more persons and which is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events (emphasis added). 49 U.S.C. 30125. Therefore, a 15-passenger van that is likely to be used significantly to transport students is a "school bus."

If the new van is sold or leased to transport students (e.g., leased on a regular or long-term basis), the vehicle must meet NHTSA's school bus standards. Conventional 15-passenger vans are not certified as doing so, and thus cannot be sold or leased, as new vehicles, to carry students on a regular basis.

Whether buses are "used significantly" to transport the students is an issue that the agency finds appropriate to resolve case-by-case, focusing on the intended use of the vehicle. In the situation you describe, the child care facility is using vans to transport children to or from school "on regular school days." Such recurring and consistent use of the van to transport students "to or from school" would constitute a "significant" use of the vehicle. Therefore, when you sell or lease new buses to any child care facility for the purpose of taking students to or picking students up from school, you must sell or lease buses that meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to "school buses."^[1]

The requirements for the use of a motor vehicle are determined by State law, so Texas's requirements should be consulted to determine how students must be transported to and from school or school-related activities. NHTSA believes that school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country, and therefore strongly recommends that all buses that are used to transport school children be certified as meeting NHTSA's school bus safety standards. In addition, using 15-passenger vans that do not meet the school bus standards to transport students could result in increased liability in the event of a crash.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:VSA#571.3
d.7/23/98

^[1] As you may be aware, in interpretation letters of May 29, 1991 and September 6, 1991 to Ms. Vel McCaslin, Director of Grace After School, an after school care program, NHTSA stated that buses used to transport children to Ms. McCaslin's program would be "school buses" only if the program is a "school or school-related event." The September 1991 letter indicated that the program picks up children from three area schools and brings them to the church on a "daily" basis. These letters concluded that Grace After School did not appear to be a "school," that the program was not a "school-related event" and that NHTSA's school bus requirements thus did not apply. NHTSA has recently reexamined the two letters to Ms. McCaslin. Upon reconsideration, we have decided that the letters to Ms. McCaslin did not focus enough on the fact that the buses were being used to transport school children "from school," as specified in 49 U.S.C. '30125. Therefore, to the extent the May 29, 1991 and September 6, 1991 letters to Ms. McCaslin are inconsistent with this letter, they are hereby superceded.

ID: nht72-2.44

DATE: 05/26/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. H. Wallace for E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Wagner Electric Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: The following interpetations are submitted in response to your letter of March 16, 1972, concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems and are numbered as the questions were in your letter.

1. The 30 skid number surface referred to in the Standard is wet and measured by the ASTH E-274-65T procedure omitting water delivery as specified in paragraph 7.1 of that procedure.

2. In S5.1.6 total electrical failure" means any electrical failure within the antilock electrical system circuitry which would cause loss of antilock control of every wheel on the vehicle.

3. S5.1.6 does not at present require the activation of the antilock warning device so long as proper antilock control remains on at least one wheel or axle.

4. The requirement for an antilock warning device is not limited to a failure in the power supply at the antilock electrical connection. However, an electrical failure in a vehicle which causes failure of the whole vehicle electrical system is not expected to activate the warning system since there would be no power to energize it.

5. In S5.1.7, for air over hydraulic brake systems, the 6 psi pressure is measured in the power air chamber coupled to the master cylinder used to convert air pressure to hydraulic pressure.

6. The wording of S5.1.7 is not intended to exclude the use of any auxiliary hand application valves for controlling the trailer brakes as long as there is also a foot treddle valve which controls the brakes of the towing vehicle and any towed vehicle.

7. The stoplight on a trailer is to be actuated whenever the service brakes on the trailer are applied. S4.5.3 of FMVSS No. 168 states "the stoplamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon the application of the service brakes."

8. The intent of S5.2.1.2 is for the service reservoir capacity, to be eight times the combined volume of all of the service brake chambers.

9. In S5.3.2 the 90 psi pressure is to be fully applied to the trailer at the start of the (Illegible Words).

10. In S5.3.2, the air compressor and air supply system of the towing vehicle are expected to be operating normally.

11. In S5.3.3, the towing vehicle brakes may be by passed by any convenient means so long as it does not cause the air pressure applied to the trailer to fall below 90 psi.

12. In S5.3.2, item 4 and 5 of Table I are not applicable.

13. A truck tested brake may be run on a dynamometer by a manufacturer for his own purposes but compliance with S5.4.1, S5.4.2 and S5.4.3 of the Standard will be determined by the Government by testing a new brake assembly identical to the one on the vehicle.

14. Same answer as for 13 above.

15. The intent of S.5.4 is for a new brake assembly identical to the one on the vehicle to be tested on a dynamometer for conformance with S5.4.1, S5.4.2 and S5.4.3

16. Same (Illegible Word) answer for 15 above.

17. In S5.4.1, S5.4.2 and S5.4.3, for a air (Illegible Word) hydraulic brake systems, the "brake chamber air pressure" is the air pressure in the power chamber coupled to the master cylinder used to convert air pressure to hydraulic pressure.

18. Same answer as for question 17.

19. The Standard does not consider tandem ratings, it addresses only the GAWR of each individual axle.

20. Vehicles conforming to S5.6.1 must have a parking brake on each individual axle of a tandem axle arrangement.

21. In S5.6.2(a) "Gross vehicle weight rating is correct for semi-trailers as well as trucks and buses; gross axle weight rating is not meant.

22. Semi-trailers are not excluded from the meeting of the alternate requirement of S5.6.2.

23. A dolly is classified as a trailer and is a separate vehicle.

24. In S5.6.2, the unloaded dolly weight does not include an unloaded semi-trailer.

25. In the dynamometer test conditions of S6.2.1, the dynamometer inertia for each brake assembly is based on 1/2 the GAWR of the axle. The rating for each axle is required to be stated separately. If, in the example you give, you choose to give 17,000 pounds as the rating for each axle, then the dynamometer inertia would be at 8,500 pounds for each brake assembly.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

WAGNER ELECTRIC CORPORATION WAGNER DIVISION

March 16, 1972

Elwood T. Driver, -- Director, Office of Operating Systems, NHTSA Gentlemen:

We recently provided our customers with copies of the original FMVSS-121 with the Notice 3 amendments noted thereon. This action has resulted in much discussion on product availability and system simplicity. Certain portions of FMVSS-121 have prompted this request for clarification and interpretation in order to better direct our test and development efforts toward customer solutions for the more exacting compliance investigations that will be carried on in the immediate future.

Each of these items is identified individually in the event a partial response can be made immediately - should a reply to some items be deferred.

The S4 definition for determination for skid number states ". . . omitting water delivery . . ." from the ASTM method. The summary statement for the Federal Register Notice 3 emphasizes the need to test on wet pavement. Sections S5.3.1.1 and 5.3.1.2 state ". . . on a wet surface with a skid number of 30 . . .". Table II has a column headed Wet Skid No. 30. Table I has a reference to ". . . skid number of 30. . ." which does not disringuish between wet and dry, and lacks consistency in the instructions.

Question 1. Is the 30 skid number determined with or without water delivery? (We would assume it to be with water delivery in view of the specific references cited. A skid number of 30 on a dry surface and subsequent testing with that surface wetted does not control the friction level of the wetted surface for uniformity in compliance testing).

There is still some ambiguity in S5.1.6 concerning ". . . a total electrical failure . . ." although the Notice 3 amendments have significantly improved this section.

Question 2. What is meant by the phrase ". . . total electrical failure . . ."? (The next two questions reflect some of our thoughts).

Question 3. In multi-axle systems where each axle has a separate control package, is it permissible for one or more axle sections to be inoperative and no signal announced as long as one axle section of the total system remains electrically intact?

Question 4. Or should the requirement for warning be limited to a failure in the power supply at the antilock electrical connection? (If power fails at battery terminals the warning device will not work).

Air over hydraulic systems employ a variety of power cylinder or power chambe types coupled to master cylinders for the pressure conversion.

Question 5. Are we correct in interpreting S5.1.7 that the 6 psi control pressure is measured in the air powered component of an air over hydraulic system even though it is not specifically a ". . . service brake chamber"?

Question 6. A popular auxiliary service brake control is the hand actuated application valve that requires rotary motion and is not depressed (Ref. S5.1.7). Is it intended to allow or exclude this option for manual actuation?

Question 7. Assuming the option of Question 6 is permitted - for tractor use to control the trailer of a combination vehicle - is it correct that the service brake stop lamp switch should be actuated by either control means and not by the foot control only?

Question 8. Is it the intent of S5.2.1.2 for only the "service" reservoirs to be used in calculating total volume, that is, exclude the isolated reservoirs provided for parking brake release?

In S5.3.1 Stopping distance - trucks and buses, there is a procedural requirement of 6 stops for each test phase in Table I. This is not permitted in S5.3.2 - Stopping capability - trailers. Hence for each single stop in the sequence specified in Table I we ask:

Question 9. Is the 90 psi the starting pressure for each stop?

Question 10. Is there intended to be any allowance for maintaining normal replacement of air pressure from the tractor compressor during the stopping tests?

Question 11. Are we at liberty to use any convenient means we choose to bypass the application of the towing vehicle brakes?

Since the items 4 and 5 of the Table I stopping sequence refer only to S5.7.2.3 conformance (Emergency stopping distance - trucks and buses) and S5.8, Emergency braking capability - trailers brakes no provision for hydraulic (Illegible Word) of the trailer emergency system we ask:

Question 12. In S5.3.2 should the instructions limit ". . . each combination of weight, speed, and road conditions . . . specified in Table I . . ." to only items 1,2 and 3 of Table I?

In S5.4 Service brake systems - dynamometer, the second sentence is still ambiguous.

"A brake assembly that has undergone a road test pursuant to S5.3 need not conform to the requirements of this section."

S5.4.1.1 requires burnish per S6.2.6 before conducting the procedure that establishes the Brake Retardation Force Curve. Therefore these inferences:

Question 13. A truck tested brake may be run on a dynamometer and if it does not conform to S5.4.1, S5.4.2 and S5.4.3, it does not disqualify the brake; correct?

Question 14. May a truck tested brake later be run on a dynamometer procedure to develop the characteristics required in S5.4.1, S5.4.2 and S5.4.3? (That is, benefit from a double burnish).

Question 15. If a truck tested brake does not conform, a different brake may be tested on the dynamometer to qualify the assembly according to S5.4.1, S5.4.2 and S5.4.3. Correct?

Question 16. If some other interpretation is intended, what is that intent? (The sentence under discussion only seems a valid part of the text if Question 14 is answered in the affirmative).

As in Question 5, there are special conditions applicable for hydraulic disc and drum brakes used in air over hydraulic systems. Therefore the "brake chamber air pressure" reference in S5.4.1 may be construed to be the pressure in the air powered element of air over hydraulic systems.

Question 17. Is this a correct interpretation?

Question 18. Assuming the answer to 17 is in the affirmative, is it correct that similar pressure sensing is applicable to the instructions of S5.4.1.1, S5.4.2.1, S5.4.2.2, S5.4.3, and Table III?

There appears to be a need to provide an NHTSS definition for axle rating when establishing the GAWR value to S5.6.1 requirements for the S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 options contained in S5.6.

Question 19. Is the conventional tandem rear axle considered to be a pair of single axles, each having a rating equal to one-half the tandem rating?

If the answer is in the affirmative, then the calculations of S5.6.1 permit a vehicle with a tandem rear axle to have a parking brake system on only one of the individual axles of that tandem. There appears to be no requirement for "a parking brake system acting on each axle except steerable front axles" as previously stated in S5.4 of the original FMVSS-121 (Notice 2).

Question 20. Is this a valid interpretation?

In S5.6.2 Grade holding - the term gross vehicle weight rating is appropriate for trucks, buses, tractors and full trailers. It does not seem appropriate to semi-trailers - especially when considered in conjunction with S6.1.9 that permits an unbraked dolly to support the front end of a semi-trailer. The GVWR of a semi-trailer is not defined as explicitly as any other vehicle and is not adequately covered in the general definitions section of Part 571, 49 CFR 571.3(b).

Question 21. Does S5.6.2(b) mean the GAWR of the axles on a semi-trailer rather than ". . . the gross vehicle weight rating. . ."?

Question 22. If the answer to 21 is negative, was the intent to eliminate the Grade Holding option permitted in S5.6.2 as one of the S5.6 options for semi-trailers?

Question 23. Is a converter dolly classed as a separate vehicle and classified as a "trailer"?

Question 24. If 23 is answered in the affirmative, is the converter dolly empty loading to be specified with an unloaded semi-trailer attached?

It has been an industry practice to combine a pair of axles (each rated at one value for single axle duty) and give the resultant tandem axle a lesser rating: e.g., two 18,500-pound single axles become a 34,000-pound tandem.

Question 25. Is it correct for dynamometer test conditions of S6.2.1 that the dynamometer inertia for each wheel be one-fourth the tandem axle rating?

(e.g., for the above illustration a wheel load of 8,500 pounds).

If we can expedite a response by discussing these points by telephone, the writer may be reached at (314) 432-5800.

We can appreciate the task that your Office faces in developing meaningful interpretations and hope that our discussions have given you an insight into the problems of semantics that the industry must resolve to avoid costly delays in testing or design activity. We will greatly appreciate the attention your staff must direct to this lengthy submission.

Very truly yours,

John W. Kourik -- Chief Engineer, Automotive Products

cc: L. R. Schneider, Code 40-30 -- Chief Counsel

ID: nht68-3.36

DATE: 05/10/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; David A. Fay; NHTSA

TO: Kaiser Jeep Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of April 17, 1968, to Mr. George C. Nield, requesting a confirmation of your interpretation of the visibility requirements for back-up lamps as specified in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You are correct in your interpretation that the visibility requirements for back-up lamps on multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks will be predicated on the normal driving, or closed tail gate, position.

Thank you for your interest in meeting the intent of the requirements of Standard No. 108.