ID: 1984-2.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/09/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Maryland State Department of Education

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 20, 1984, letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), concerning the Federal school bus safety standards administered by this agency. You asked three questions regarding passenger seating in school buses and the classification of vehicles as school buses.

Specifically, your questions asked:

(a) There are 9 students plus the driver, for a total of 10 people, in a school bus. For purposes of the definition of a school bus, is the driver a passenger?

Section 571.3 of the Code of Federal Regulations defines a "school bus" as a bus that transports children to or from school or related events. Our regulations further define "bus" as a vehicle designed for carrying more than 10 persons. The driver is considered a "person" under our regulations. Thus, it may be useful to remember that any vehicle that carries more than 10 persons is a bus. Your vehicle which seats 9 students plus the driver, for a total of 10 persons, would not be considered a school bus.

(b) If a van is originally designed for 11 passengers plus a driver and, because of the definition of a school bus, the school system desires to alter the number of seat spaces by removing seats so that the van will accommodate 9 pupils plus the driver, will this alteration in any way conflict with the definition of vehicle capacity? (I would assume that any structural changes would place liability in the event of accident attributable to that alteration on the local school system making the change.)

In asking whether the alteration will "conflict with the definition of vehicle capacity," we assume that you are asking whether removing the seats of the vehicle changes the classification of that vehicle as a bus. Your letter is not clear whether it is a dealer who will be modifying the vehicle prior to its sale to the school system, after its sale to the school system, or whether the school itself will be modifying the bus after purchasing the vehicle. We will address these situations in our answer.

Altering an 11-passenger van by removing some of its seats so that it would no longer be of a passenger capacity that would classify it as a bus is, in theory, permissible. If a dealer makes such a modification before the vehicle is sold to you, it must attach an alterer's label in accordance with Part 567.7, Certification, of our regulations. Since the dealer would be changing the vehicle type from a bus to a multipurpose passenger vehicle, it must make sure that the vehicle complies with all of the standards applicable to that new vehicle type. This might be difficult since some different standards apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles than apply to buses.

If the modifications to the vehicle are made by a business such as a garage after you purchase the vehicle, the persons modifying the vehicle must not knowing render inoperative the compliance of your vehicle with any applicable safety standard. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses from rendering inoperative equipment or designs that are incorporated in motor vehicles in compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This means that a person in any of the above categories would not be permitted to destroy the vehicle's compliance with any safety standard by the removal of the seat.

The prohibition against rendering inoperative does not apply to an owner, such as a school or a state, which modifies its own vehicles. A school modifying its own vehicles need not assure that the vehicles comply with the Federal school bus safety standards. However, you are correct in assuming that your school could incur substantial tort liability in the event of an accident involving a vehicle that was not in compliance with the appropriate safety standards. This matter should be discussed with your insurance company and attorney. You should further determine whether your State law would prohibit the use of these vehicles to transport school children.

(c) On a 60-passenger school bus, all of the seats except the three rows in the front are removed. Each seat is 39 inches in width and is used to accommodate two high school pupils. The vehicle color is something other than yellow. A floor-to-ceiling barrier, with an emergency opening, is installed behind the three rows of seats. Supplies, materials, tools, equipment, etc., are transported in the rear of the vehicle with up to 12 youngsters plus the driver in the front portion. Given that all these factors exist at one time, will this vehicle be in conflict with any federal standards? If so, which ones?

There are several areas of school bus safety which could be affected by the proposed modification of the vehicle. Since the vehicle will be carrying more than 10 persons, it is categorized as a bus, and classified by its use as a school bus. A threshold issue related to the question you asked concerns, again, the possibility that removing the bus seats will render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the Federal school bus safety standards. The issue depends on whether it is a garage-type business that will be altering the bus, or the school. Modification of a safety system so that it no longer complies with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of the vehicle's manufacture would be a violation of Section 108(a)(2)(A). As discussed earlier, this prohibition does not apply to an owner, such as a school or a state, which modifies its own vehicles. A school may make any modification that it chooses to its buses. Such action does not violate the Vehicle Safety Act or render the school subject to any penalty under the Act.

However, as you know, private liability might occur if the modifications took the vehicle out of compliance with the safety standard and a student was subsequently injured in one of the buses. Accordingly, the modifications you make should not negatively affect the compliance of your vehicle with the safety standards.

The removal of the bus seats does not appear likely to affect adversely your vehicle's compliance with the Federal safety standards. Those standards do not require the installation of any specific seats or any specified number of seats in school buses. Instead, the standards specify that certain requirements must be met for any seat that is installed. Therefore, if the bus complied with the requirements of the Federal school bus safety standards before its alteration, the proper removal of the seats would not affect the vehicle's compliance.

You propose to install a floor-to-ceiling barrier in the vehicle behind the three rows of seats. Your letter does not describe this barrier in detail, but states that it contains an emergency opening. We are concerned that this barrier would render the vehicle in noncompliance with the requirements for emergency exits found in FMVSS No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release.

Standard No. 217 regulates the number and size of school bus emergency exits and requires that the release mechanisms of those exits be readily accessible. The purpose of these requirements is to provide an easily operable, unobstructed school bus emergency exit. In the past, the agency has preempted a State requirement for a safety chain that would have been placed across an exit, because we viewed the chain as providing an obstruction to the opening. We have also interpreted the Standard to prohibit a ramp used for transporting the handicapped when the ramp partially blocked the rear emergency exit when it folded into the bus. Your letter did not describe in detail the floor-to-ceiling barrier in your bus and we are unable to form an opinion as to the compliance of the altered vehicle with Standard No. 217. However, if the barrier provides an impediment to the emergency exit then the alteration might conflict with FMVSS No. 217. Further, if the barrier conflicted with Standard No. 217, then it could not be added as aftermarket equipment by any manufacturer, dealer, or repair business, without rendering inoperative the compliance of the bus with the safety standard.

Finally, you indicated that the school bus would be a color other than yellow. Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17 formerly permitted school vehicles carrying 16 or less students to or from school (i.e., "Type II" school vehicles) to be marked, painted, and lighted in one of two ways. The buses could be either marked, painted, and lighted as school buses, or marked, painted, and lighted differently than school buses. However, all school buses now must have the lighting of a school bus required under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Since all school buses must have the lighting of a school bus, under Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17 they also must have the painting and marking of a school bus.

SINCERELY,

MARYLAND STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

March 20, 1984

Frank Berndt, Esquire Chief Counsel, NHTSA NHTSA NTS-31 U.S. Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Berndt: In reviewing CFR 49 (definition of a school bus), the information which you provided recently to school bus contractors in Wisconsin, and Section 201 of Public Law 93-492, I confess I am confused as to who are the passengers on a school bus.

One of my specific questions, I believe, concerns whether the driver is considered as a passenger in a school bus. Below are several situations for which I would like clarification.

(a) There are 9 students plus the driver, for a total of 10 people, in a school bus. For purposes of definition of a school bus, is the driver a passenger?

(b) If a van is originally designed for 11 passengers plus a driver and, because of the definition of school bus, the school system desires to alter the number of seat spaces by removing seats so that the van will accommodate 9 pupils plus the driver, will this alteration in any way conflict with the definition of vehicle capacity? (I would assume that any structural changes would place liability in the event of accident attributable to that alteration on the local school system making the change.)

(c) On a 60-passenger school bus, all of the seats except the three rows in the front are removed. Each seat is 39 inches in width and is used to accommodate two high school pupils. The vehicle color is something other than yellow. A floor-to-ceiling barrier, with an emergency opening, is installed behind the three rows of seats. Supplies, materials, tools, equipment, etc., are transported in the rear of the vehicle with up to 12 youngsters plus the driver in the front portion. Given that all these factors exist at one time, will this vehicle be in conflict with any federal standards? If so, which ones?

I have tried to be as specific as possible in the details provided, but it may well be that further amplification on my part is necessary. Please do not hesitate to call me at (301) 659-2602 so that we might discuss the matter before you reply.

Thank you very much for your cooperation. I look forward to hearing from you very soon.

Wm. Richard Alexander, Chief Pupil Transportation Section

ID: 1984-2.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/09/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Porsche

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG Abt. ESV z. Hd. Hern Mayer Postfach 11 40 7251 Weissach WEST GERMANY

Dear Mr. Mayer:

This responds to your letter about Safety Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays, and Safety Standard No. 101, Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect. Your letter asked two questions concerning whether a proposed design for a passenger car automatic transmission shift lever would meet the requirements of those standards. Your questions are answered below. This letter also discusses additional issues raised by your proposed design that were not directly raised by your letter. Finally, since the drawing accompanying your letter may be a future design plan, I have enclosed a copy of 49 CFR 512, which explains how you may apply for confidential treatment of design information.

By way of background information, I would note that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not grant approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to assure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

According to your letter and accompanying drawing, the design you are considering may be generally described as follows. The shift lever would be mounted on the floor console and would not be identified. A display for the transmission sequence would be provided on the instrument panel. All eligible positions would be permanently in view of the driver, and the selected position would be identified through more intense illumination.

Your first question is whether it is permissible under these standards for a manufacturer not to provide identification for the shift lever. The answer to that question is yes. Neither Standard No. 101 nor Standard No. 102 includes any requirement concerning identification of an automatic transmission shift lever. Moreover, no other Federal motor vehicle safety standard includes such a requirement.

The identification and other requirements of Standard No. 101 only apply to the controls and displays listed in the standard. Since automatic transmission shift levels are not among the controls listed in the standard, the standard's requirements are not applicable. Standard No. 102 requires that identification of shift lever positions of automatic transmissions... shall be permanently displayed in view of the driver." Section S3.2. NHTSA has interpreted this section to require the display of a gear lever sequence and a gear position indicator. The section does not, however, require the shift lever control itself to be identified. Your second question is whether Standard No. 101 or Standard No. 102 requires the shift lever to be within a certain reaching distance to be operable by the driver while driving the vehicle. The answer to that question is no.

As your letter pointed out, Standard No. 101 does require certain controls to be operable by the driver when the driver is restrained by the crash protection equipment installed in accordance with the requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. As explained in the answer to your first question, however, the requirements of Standard No. 101 are not applicable to automatic transmission shift levers. I would note that the term "manual transmission shift lever," listed in section S5.1 of the standard, does not incorporate automatic transmission shift levers. Similarly, Standard No. 102 does not include any requirements concerning the location of the shift lever.

I would like to point out two additional issues raised by your proposed design. The first concerns the requirement in Standard No. 102 that "(i)dentification of shift lever positions of automatic transmissions... shall be permanently displayed in view of the driver." Section S3.2. NHTSA interprets "position" to mean the position of the gears in relation to each other and the position that the driver has selected. Thus, as noted above, the agency has interpreted this section to require the display of a gear lever sequence and a gear position indicator.

Moreover, the agency has interpreted this section's use of the words "permanently displayed" to require a display which can be seen regardless of the operating mode of the engine. Thus, a display that would not be seen when the ignition is in the "off" position does not comply with these requirements. (A letter which discusses this interpretation is enclosed. The letter is addressed to Ford.)

Taking these interpretations together, Standard No. 102 requires the display of a gear lever sequence and a gear position indicator, both of which must be capable of being seen regardless of whether the ignition is on or off. It is not clear whether your proposed design meets these requirements. Your letter states that all eligible positions are permanently in view of the driver and the selected position is identified through more intense illumination. First, with regard to the gear lever sequence, it is not clear whether your letter's use of the word "permanently" covers periods of time when the ignition is not on.

Second, with regard to the gear position indicator, it is not clear whether the selected position is identified by more intense illumination during periods of time when the ignition is not on.

The second issue I would like to note concerns the light intensity requirements of Standard No. 101. Automatic gear position displays are covered by that standard and must meet its requirements for, among other things, light intensity. An automatic gear display is a gauge. See section S4. Section S5.3.3 requires that light intensities for gauges and their identification be continuously variable from (a) a position at which either there is no light emitted or the light is barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions to (b) a position providing illumination sufficient for the driver to identify the control or display readily under conditions of reduced visibility. However, if the gauge is an informational readout display, section S5.3.3 only requires that it have at least two values, a higher one for day, and a lower one for nighttime conditions.

Finally, I would note that incoming letters and attachments are routinely made public along with letters of interpretation. Since the drawing accompanying your letter may be a future design plan, I have enclosed a copy of 49 CFR 512, Confidential Business Information, which sets forth the agency's procedures concerning confidentiality. Please contact me if you wish to apply for confidential treatment for that drawing.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures

Miss Diane K. Steed Deputy Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 USA ESVG/My/u (453)

October 6, 1983 Subject: FMVSS 101 and 102; Interpretation

Dear Miss Steed,

In connection with FMVSS's Nos. 101 and 102 we kindly ask you for interpretation resp. clarification in view of the location and identification of the display of the automatic gear position and the shift lever itself.

Your early favourable consideration of our request would be greatly appreciated.

Yours truly,

Dr.Ing.h.c. F. Porsche Aktiengesellschaft - Technical Administration-Mayer Enclosure

Request of Interpretation of Location and Identification

Requirements for the Automatic Gear Position Display and the Shift Lever of Automatic Transmissions

In S 5.1 of FMVSS 101 it is claimed that the displays shall be visible to the driver.

In S 5.2 of FMVSS 101 it is claimed that the identification shall be placed on or adjacent to the display that it identifies.

Column 3 of Table 2 of FMVSS 101 refers to FMVSS 102 with regard to the question of the identifying words or abbreviation and no symbol is included in column 4 of the said table (automatic gear position).

In FMVSS 102 under S 3.2 the identification of shift lever positions of automatic transmissions is requested in connection with the instruction: "....shall be permanently displayed in view of the driver".

Our Questions are the following:

1) Is an advice of transmission shift lever sequence of an automatic transmission in a passenger car sufficient; as shown in annex 1 (*)? In this case all eligible positions are permanently in view of the driver and the selected position is identified through more intense illumination.

Is it admissible in this case that the shift lever which is mounted on the floor console has no identification?

(*) For presentation we had to use the instrument desired for the German market. Please neglect this fact as the third dial-plate to the left shows the US-speedometer version and includes the requested transmission sequence.

2) The shift lever for the automatic transmission is of course located within reach of the driver who is protected under FMVSS 208. What we would like to know is if Standard 101 or Standard 102 require that the shift lever has to be within a specific reaching distance to be operable by the driver while driving the vehicle, since FMVSS S.5.1 under article (j) refers only to manual transmission shift lever.

We would be very grateful to hear from you as soon as possible since we have stopped designing on this subject until we receive an answer from you.

Sincerely yours, Dr.Ing.h.c.F.Porsche AG -Technical Administration- Mayer

Dr.Ing.h.c.F.Porsche AG Abt. ESV z. Hd. Herrn Mayer Postfach 11 40 7251 Weissach WEST-GERMAMY

ID: 1984-2.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/10/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Collier-Keyworth Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Richard L. Batt Chief Engineer, Juvenile Division Collier-Keyworth Company Gardner, Massachusetts 01440

Dear Mr. Batt:

This responds to your letter of June 19, 1984, asking how the requirements of section 5.2(d) of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, apply to a sample child restraint belt buckle you provided the agency. You specifically asked whether the buckle would be considered a push button-release buckle or a lever-release buckle.

Your buckle would be considered a push button-release buckle since a person opens the buckle by pushing down on a specified surface. The lever-release buckle refers to a type of buckle which is opened by lifting a portion of the buckle. For example, the buckles found on airplane safety belts and some racing safety belts are lever-release buckles.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

June 19, 1984

Office of Chief Counsel Mr. Steve Kratzke National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Room 5219 Washington, D.C. 20950

RE: Sample Buckle

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

Thank you for taking the time to talk with me about a child restraint belt buckle.

Enclosed is a sample buckle that is only indicative of the design that we want to know about, and how it might be covered by the regulations imposed on child restraints. Please bear in mind that structural strength, corrosion resistance, and temperature resistance properties can all be addressed with alternatives to the materials that the sample buckle is made of.

What we really want to know is, does this design conform to the lever requirements of FMVSS 209? Will this design be considered to be a push button configuration, or will it be considered to be a lever configuration?

We need to know the proper designation in order to correctly design the physical shape of a newly proposed buckle.

I thank you.

Very truly yours,

COLLIER-KEYWORTH COMPANY

Richard L. Batt

Chief Engineer Juvenile Division RLB/dlc Enclosure

ID: 1984-2.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/11/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: State of Alabama

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Wayne Teague State Superintendent of Education State of Alabama State Office Building Montgomery, Alabama 36130

Dear Mr. Teague:

This responds to your June 27, 1984, letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requesting information regarding the legal ramifications of converting school buses with gasoline or diesel fuel systems to propane or compressed natural gas fuel systems.

We are enclosing a copy of a letter that we sent on August 17, 1979, to Mr. Mike Champagne, which discusses the Federal requirements and implications of making such conversions of vehicle fuel systems. This letter should provide you with the information that you requested. You specifically asked about the possible liability in tort that the Department of Education may incur as a result of the conversion. We emphasize that the possibility of tortious liability, which is governed by State law, exists even where the modifications are made in compliance with the requirements of this agency. We suggest that you therefore discuss the matter of liability in tort with your insurance company and attorney.

You also asked whether there is an agency which can certify that the modified fuel system complies with a safety standard, thereby providing school systems and Department of Education with a defense in the event of a private lawsuit in tort. We are not aware of any Federal agency that provides this type of certification. You may want to consider having the modified fuel systems on your school buses tested by a private engineering or research facility to verify that the conversions were properly done.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosure

June 27, 1984

Mr. Frank A. Berndt, Chief Council N.H.T.S.A. - NOA-30 U. S. Department of Transportation Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

A variety of fuel alternatives is being offered by fuel innovators that will reduce gasoline fuel consumption or replace gasoline altogether. Some energy experts are calling for massive efforts on the part of industry and government to speed the development of the synthetic fuels industry to reduce the dependence on oil imports. However, even in light of all the research by government and private agencies, there are no Federal Department of Transportation Safety Standards relating directly to the use of propane or compressed natural gas on school buses. School buses powered by gasoline or diesel fuel are certified by the manufacturer as meeting the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-Fuel System Integrity.

Alabama's Minimum Specifications for School Buses require that school buses be certified by the manufacturer to the State Department of Education in the form of a certification plate mounted in the bus that states the vehicle is in compliance with the applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards which include Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-Fuel System Integrity.

It is the opinion of the Alabama State Department of Education that the safety inspection program conducted by the School Bus Equipment Inspectors approves the vehicle only as it relates to the original manufacturer's certification. Our questions are as follows: (1) If we allow the local school systems to remove the gasoline fuel system which is regulated by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-Fuel System Integrity and install a propane or compressed natural gas fuel system which is not regulated by the United States Department of Transportation Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, would the State Department of Education be liable for any accident, injury, or death that may be caused by or related to the conversion? (2) Is there an agency which can certify that the fuel system, after conversion, meets a required safety standard that would protect the local school system and the State Department of Education from liability for any accident, injury, or death that may be caused by or related to the conversion?

Your prompt attention to this matter is greatly appreciated. Sincerely,

Wayne Teague State Superintendent of Education WT:nfd

ID: 1984-2.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/13/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Office of Public Instruction; Montana

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Terry Brown, Specialist Pupil Transportation Safety Office of Public Instruction State Capitol Helena, Montana 59620

Dear Mr. Brown:

This responds to your March 12, 1984, letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning the use of ordinary passenger vehicles, vans, and motor coaches, as school buses. You posed three separate questions regarding school district liability when these vehicles are used to transport school children.

Your first question asked for information on school district liability when 9, 12, or 16 passenger vans which do not comply with the Federal school bus safety standards are used to transport school children on activity trips. First, as you are probably aware, NHTSA does not hold schools responsible for operating noncomplying vehicles. Our enforcement authority is directed toward the vehicle manufacturer or the dealer that sells the noncomplying vehicle. Accordingly, there is no Federal prohibition against the operation by schools of noncomplying school buses. However, the laws of your state might not allow the use of such vehicles for the transportation of school children. Further, operation of noncomplying vehicles can pose insurance problems as qell as the possibility of private liability in the event that a child is injured in an accident involving one of those vehicles. You might want to discuss the issue of school district liability further with your insurance company and attorney.

Your first question can be restated to ask, "Do 9, 12, or 16 passenger vans which are used to transport school children on activity trips have to comply with the Federal school bus safety standards?"

The floor debates on the Motor Vehicle Safety and Schoolbus Amendments of 1974 show that Congress chose to specify a broad definition of school bus to include so-called "activity buses" in the definition. Therefore, activity buses are subject to the same Federal school bus safety standards which apply to buses that transport children to and from school.

A vehicle that is significantly used to transport school children to and from school and related events must be certified as complying with the school bus safety standards if the vehicle is a bus, and if the date of manufacture of that vehicle is after April 1, 1977. Under Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 571.3, Definitions, a bus is defined as a motor vehicle (other than a trailer) designed for carrying more than 10 persons including the driver. Thus, a 9 passenger van would not be considered a bus nor a school bus under the Federal regulations. The school bus safety standards would not apply to such a vehicle. On the other hand, your 12 and 16 passenger vans are considered school buses since passenger capacity is above 10 persons.

Whether these 12 and 16 passenger vans must comply with the safety standards depends on the date of manufacture of those vehicles. The Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974 which directed NHTSA to issue safety standards for new school vehicles, established the date on which the standards were to become effective. The comprehensive school bus safety standards became effective on April 1, 1977. If your 12 and 16 passenger vans were manufactured in or imported into this country on or after April 1, 1977, they must be certified as complying with the Federal school bus safety standards.

Your second question asked about school district liability when "regular or four-wheel drive suburbans (9 passenger)" are used to transport children to and from school. Again, the question we are addressing here is whether these vehicles must comply with the school bus safety standards. The answer to this question is no. A motor vehicle carrying 9 passengers is not considered a bus or a school bus under the Federal regulations.

Your third question asked, "What problems could school districts face when they use over-the-road coaches (greyhound types) to transport children on activity trips?" As discussed previously, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended, together with the school bus safety standards, require that these buses be certified by their manufacturer as complying with the Federal school bus safety standards if they are significantly used to transport school children to and from school-related events. Greyhound-type buses as currently manufactured cannot be certified as doing such. Therefore, although NHTSA could not bring an enforcement action against a school using noncomplying school vehicles, a school district using a Greyhound-type motor coach may encounter problems obtaining insurance for its noncomplying vehicle. Further, the potential for private liability in the event of an accident involving one of these vehicles is very high.

If you have any further questions on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

March 12, 1984

Mr. Frank A. Bern Chief Council NHTSA NOA-30 U.S. Department of Transportation Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Bern:

I am inquiring about material I have read recently about school bus safety. Particularly statements from your legal people about the use of vans and over-the-road coaches to haul school children.

State Superintendent Argenbright has asked that I contact you for some specific information about 1) school district liability when they use regular 9, 12 or 16 passenger vans to transport school children on activity trips, 2) the possible liability when they use regular or four-wheel drive suburbans (9 passenger) to transport children to and from school and, 3) what problems could school districts face when they use over-the-road coaches (greyhound types) to transport children on activity trips?

I am talking about the use of school vehicles that do not meet our state or national "school bus" standards.

Rather than sending just printed material, I would appreciate receiving written information from you or one of your staff members, concerning these issues.

Thank you for your consideration and I look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

Terry Brown, Specialist Pupil Transportation Safety

cc: Ed Argenbright

ID: 1984-2.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/13/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Linda Morrow

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Linda Morrow 2908 Eastway Drive Statesville, NC 28677

Dear Ms. Morrow:

This responds to your letter inquiring about the Federal safety standards that would apply to a product you are planning to sell. You stated that the product is a sheet of 1/8 inch tinted acrylic that is held on a side window of a vehicle by four suction cups. The purpose of the sheet is to shield vehicle occupants from the sun. The following discussion explains the applicability of our safety standards to your sun screen.

Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392(a), we have promulgated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, 49 CFR 571.205, Glazing Materia1s, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).

No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and other sunscreen devices, such as those described in your letter, in new vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance requirements of the Standard.

After a vehicle is sold to the consumer, he may alter his vehicle as he pleases, so long as he adheres to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may install the devices regardless of whether the installation adversely affects the light transmittance. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from applying sun screens on their vehicles.

If a dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor installs the sun screen device for the owner of the vehicle, then a violation of S108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act may result. That section provides that none of those persons may knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Violation of the "render inoperative" provision can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.

If you need further information, the agency will be glad to provide it.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 1984-2.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/13/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Porsche

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Mayer D. Ing. h.c.F. Porsche AG Porschestrasse 42 Stuttgart-Zuffenheusen Germany

Dear Mr. Mayer:

Your letter of June 5, 1984, to Mr. Jettner was forwarded to my office for reply. You asked whether Porsche may use a trilingual marking on glass-plastic glazing. As explained below, the answer is yes.

Section 5.1.2.5(b) of Standard No. 205 requires manufacturers of glass-plastic glazing to permanently and indelibly mark the lower center of such glazing with the words, "Glass Plastic Material -See Owner's Manual For Care Instructions". The letter must be not less than 3/16 inch nor more than 1/4 inch high. You ask whether the optional marking permitted may be trilingual. As long as the English marking conforms to the requirements of section 5.l.2.5(b), there is no prohibition in the standard to using a trilingual warning.

I note that the pictures you enclosed with your letter appear to show a decal with the language required to meet the standard. As discussed in the preamble to the glass-plastic glazing final rule, the agency added section 5.1.2.5(b) of the standard to allow manufacturers to etch or otherwise permanently and indelibly mark the message on the glazing. Please note that the use of a plastic decal which could be removed or become illegible would not be deemed "permanent and indelible" by the agency.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Mr. Edward Jettber Office of Vehicle Safety Standards National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, SW. Washington, D.C. 20590 USA

ESV-My-re Weissach, June 5, 1984

Request for Clarification

Dear Mr. Jettner:

In February 1984 (Federal Register Vol. 49; No. 37; Pages 6732/6735 of February 23, 1984) Safety Standard 205, Glazing Materials, was amended to allow the use of glass-plastic glazing as windshields and windows in motor vehicles.

In relation with this amendment permission was given to affix a label on the window in order to give vehicle owner's cleaning instructions, S 5.1.2.5(b).

The text must be in letters not less than 3/16 inch nor more than 1/4 inch high, with the following words:

"GLASS PLASTIC MATERIAL - SEE OWNER'S MANUAL FOR CARE INSTRUCTIONS."

We are now asking for permission to add the corresponding cleaning instructions in German and French to this label.

The trilingual label would assure that the content of the instruction will be understood by the customers in most of the countries our vehicles are sold to, without the disadvantage of using different labels in production.

A uniform label would also prevent errors in the assignment of the labels to the different countries.

For better understanding we enclosed pictures showing the requested labels on our vehicles '911' and '928'.

Altogether, the dimensions of the label are small enough that the label can be affixed on the area underneath the windshield wipers (windshield wipers in resting position).

An early favorable answer of our request would be greatly appreciated as we intent to use the new windshields, which have a layer of polyurethan on the inner surface, on our new vehicles (1985).

We thank you in advance for your kindness and remain,

Sincerely yours,

Dr.Ing.h.c.F. Porsche AG -Technical Administration-Mayer Enclosure

"INSERT"

"INSERT"

ID: 1984-2.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/21/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Herbert Jerome Bass

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Herbert Jerome Bass Suite 1410 Number Two Penn Center Plaza Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102

This responds to your April 4, 1984 letter to the Secretary of Transportation. In that letter, you requested information on Federal requirements applicable to a commercial operation involving the placement of gasoline engines in used diesel automobiles.

The Department of Transportation is responsible for administering the Federal motor vehicle safety and automotive fuel economy standards programs. No fuel ecomony requirements would apply to the operation you describe since those requirements apply to new vehicles only. In the safety area, the only requirement which might apply to such an operation would be 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A). That provision prohibits vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or private repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any equipment or element of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The safety standards are set forth in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 571. Whether the commercial venture you describe in your letter violates the statutory provision would depend upon whether the venture could be characterized as a vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or private repair business and whether the engine substitution process would result in a noncompliance with one of our standards. Based on the information provided in your letter, we cannot definitively answer either question.

There may be issues involving automotive emissions standards which apply to an operation of the sort you describe. We are forwarding a copy of your letter to the Environmental Protection Agency to respond to that aspect of your question.

Sincerely, Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Secretary of Transportation U.S. Government Washington, D.C.

Dear Sir:

This letter will advise you that I represent several individuals in the State of Pennsylvania who have undertaken an enterprise involving used automobiles.

They are contemplating the purchase of large numbers of vehicles that were designed to operate with diesel fuel. Their intention is to remove the diesel engine from each vehicle and to substitute an engine which used regular fuel exclusively. Subsequent to this operation they intend to advertise these vehicles for sale.

We are aware of the fact that each of the vehicles originally bears the serial number as a diesel engine.

Our question is "Are there any Federal statutes or regulations making such an operation unlawful in any way, and is it fitting and proper to substitute the regular engines in the bodies of these vehicles which were formerly diesel operated?"

I would appreciate it very much if you would reply to this inquiry promptly since we wish to conform properly to the rules and regulations.

Thank you very much for your prompt attention.

Very truly yours, HERBERT JEROME BASS

ID: 1984-2.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/19/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Forrest L. Bettis, Project Director, Traders International

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Subject: Approval for automotive Testing of Two Non-Conforming Vehicles

Reference: 22157-30.4.84

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We are an automotive marketing research firm located in the Los Angeles area. Recently, we were contracted by a Japanese auto manufacturer to test U.S. acceptance of their new car. The importation is for Daihatsu Motor Co., manufacturer not presently selling vehicles in the U.S.

We urgently need the approval of NHTSA to import these vehicles for testing. These vehicles are to be used for engineering evaluation, emissions testing and marketing evaluations. Following testing, they will be returned to Japan.

Enclosed is a letter from Daihatsu Motor Company requesting a waiver from the California Air Resources Board and listing specs of vehicles.

We are under severe time constraints. These cars are scheduled to arrive in San Pedro/Long Beach no later than July 25. If possible, your approval for importation and testing would be appreciated prior to July 2O, 1984.

If you need any additional information, call us collect (818)768-8573.

Sincerely,

Forrest L. Bettis Project Director

Mr. Forrest L. Bettis Project Director Traders International 10553 Alskog St.

Sun Valley, CA 91352

Dear Mr. Bettis:

This is in response to your letter of July 7, 1984, asking for the agency's "approval for importation and testing" of two small Japanese cars.

No "approval" is necessary for importation for the purposes you specify. Pursuant to Title 19 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 12.80(b)(1)(vii), a motor vehicle which does not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards may nonetheless be imported for purposes of test or experiment. If the vehicle is to be operated on the public roads, it may be so tested for a period of up to one year after importation, provided that a statement is attached to the entry form giving the purpose of the test or experiment, the estimated amount of time that the vehicle will spend on the public roads, and the disposition to be made of it at the end of the test period. The letter to the California Air Resources Board, which you attached, appears sufficient for this purpose.

The entry form I mentioned in the preceding paragraph is Form HS-7 which is required to be executed when the vehicles enter the country. The proper declaration to check for purposes of test and experiment is Box 7.

Should your client require more than one year's evaluation, you may ask the agency for an additional year, and later, a third year if required.

If you have any further questions we shall be happy to answer them.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Ref. No. 47041 Date July 4, 1984

Mr. K.D. Drachand, Chief Mobile Source Division California Air Resources Board 9528 Telstar Avenue El Monte, California 91731 U.S.A.

RE : Application for two experimental permits

We are a Japanese automobile manufacturing company currently investigating the introduction of a new car to the U.S. market. To test our product in the U.S., we must import two nonconforming vehicles. These are different from the vehicles which marketing department of our company applied on May 23. Now, we need the experimental permits to operate these vehicles on public roadways in California. Following testing, they will be returned to Japan. These vehicles are to be used for engineering evaluation and marketing evaluations.

Vehicle specs are as follows :

Manufacturer : Daihatsu Motor Company Ltd. Vehicle models : 1. Daihatsu Charade 2 door (G11 Micro-mini FF passenger car) 2. Daihatsu Rocky (F7OLV Wagon type 4x4) Length : 3,550 mm 3,715 mm Width : 1,550 mm 1,580 mm Height : 1,395 mm 1,840 mm Weight : 690 kg 1,365 kg Dates : July 24 - Oct. 24 VIN numbers : Charade 2 door JDA 000G1100737951 Rocky JDA 000F7000600408

These two cars will be shipped from Kobe. Japan to Los Angeles, California. In California, they will be evaluated and test driven by several people. After this test, they will undergo a series of additional tests. Within one year of importation, these vehicles will be returned to Japan.

Sincerely yours,

Tetsuo Iwakura; Project Manager Product Planning Dept. Daihatsu Motor Company Ltd.

ID: 1984-2.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/20/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Southwest Research Institute

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Louis F. Klusmeyer, Senior Research Scientist Southwest Research Institute P.O. Drawer 28510 6220 Culebra Road San Antonio, Texas 78284

Dear Mr. Klusmeyer:

This responds to your letter dated May 15, 1984, regarding the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard for compliance testing of the "air over hydraulic" braking system used on certain Nissan heavy duty trucks.

After examining the information provided in your letter and the enclosed diagram of the air over hydraulic braking system, we note that air pressure is used to transmit braking pressure from the driver, not merely to assist the driver in applying muscular force to hydraulic or mechanical components.

When the original final rule was issued on Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, the preamble stated:

It should be noted that the term "air brake system" as defined in the standard applies to the brake configuration commonly referred to as "air over hydraulic," in which failure of either medium can result in complete loss of braking ability.

See Federal Register, February 27, 1971, at page 3817.

In 1972, the agency reiterated this interpretation in the preamble to the original final rule on Standard No. 1O5a (now, Standard No. 1O5), Hydraulic Brake Systems:

Standard No. 105a does not apply to vehicles equipped with "air over hydraulic" systems, which remain within the purview of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

See Federal Register, September 2, 1971, at page 17917. Copies of these pages are enclosed.

Accordingly, the air over hydraulic diesel truck system described in your letter would have to meet the requirements of Standard No. 121 , Air Brake Systems.

You ask whether the air chamber volumes at the "air booster," as it appears in your diagram, could be used in calculating the required air service reservoir capacity or in determining reaction time. This agency agrees that, if the brake actuation to the wheels is hydraulic, then the requirements of Standard No. 121 for air service reservoir capacity and brake application and release timing can be measured at the "air booster" for compliance testing. When a heavy duty truck is equipped with an air over hydraulic brake system, the air booster can be considered the equivalent of the air brake chamber in Standard No. 121.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures

15 May 1984

Mr. Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) has been asked to examine heavy duty trucks produced by Nissan Diesel Motor Co., Ltd. in order to determine compliance with United States standards.

These trucks use a "air-over hydraulic" brake system and there is some question as to the appropriate Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS). We are, therefore, requesting a decision from NHTSA as to whether FMVSS standard 105 or FMVSS standard 121 is applicable to these trucks.

The following information may help in this decision:

o The driver uses a treadle valve to operate and control the service brakes.

o Compressed air is used from the treadle valve to the "air booster" and hydraulic brake fluid is used from the "air booster" to the service brakes.

o No hydraulic or mechanical means is used to transmit force from the drivers control to the "air booster" and no air is used to supply actuating force at the individual wheels.

o A complete loss of air pressure causes a complete loss of braking from the service brake system, rather than a reduced capability as would be normal with a "brake power assist unit" or a "brake power unit".

o "Air brake chambers," as such, are not used since brake actuation at the wheels is hydraulic. The air chamber volumes at the "air booster" could possibly be used in calculating required aiu service reservoir capacity or determining reaction time.

A diagram of the braking system is included with this letter as a aid in understanding the system.

If I can provide further information or answer questions for you, please call (512) 684-5111, extension 3017.

Sincerely,

Louis F. Klusmeyer Senior Research Scientist Vehicle Systems Department of Engine and Vehicle Research Engines, Emissions and Vehicle Research Division

LFK/dg Attachment

INSERT GRAPHS