ID: 1764y

AIR MAIL

Mr. M.J. Yoon Director In-One Development Corp. 2nd Floor, Gukdong Building 3-Ga Chungmoo-Ro Jung-Gu Seoul, Korea

Dear Mr. Yoon:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Kratzke, asking whether a vehicle you are developing for a client would be classified as a passenger car or a multipurpose passenger vehicle for the purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. I am pleased to be able to explain our law and regulations for you. I regret the delay in responding.

At the outset, I would like to make clear that the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) places the responsibility for classifying a particular vehicle in the first instance on the vehicle's manufacturer. For this reason, NHTSA does not approve or endorse any vehicle classifications before the manufacturer itself has classified a particular vehicle. NHTSA may reexamine the manufacturer's classification during the course of any enforcement actions. We will, however, tentatively state how we believe we would classify this vehicle for the purposes of our safety standards. It is important that you understand that these tentative statements of classification are based entirely on our understanding of the information presented in your letter to us. These tentative statements about the vehicle's classification may change after NHTSA has had an opportunity to examine the vehicle itself or otherwise acquire additional information about the vehicle.

With those caveats, we believe that the vehicle referenced in your letter could be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle for the purposes of our safety standards. The term "multipurpose passenger vehicle" is defined in 49 CFR /571.3 as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." In your letter, you describe the vehicle as having 4-wheel drive. Additionally, the approach and departure angles and the running clearance dimensions for this vehicle show that it has high ground clearance. The combination of 4-wheel drive and high ground clearance would be considered "special features for occasional off-road operation." Hence, it appears to us that this vehicle could be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle.

You also asked for a copy of the criteria for classifying vehicles for purposes of the safety standards. All of our classification definitions are set forth in 49 CFR /571.3. The information sheet I have enclosed explains how to obtain a copy of this and all of our other regulations, and provides other information relevant to new motor vehicle manufacturers. I have also enclosed a copy of our proposal for a new vehicle classification system for the safety standards.

I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you have any further questions or need additional information.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

/ ref:571 d:3/3l/89

ID: 1765y

Mr. Melvin Krewall
Director, Transportation Section
Financial Services Division
Oklahoma State Department of Education
2500 North Lincoln Blvd
Oklahoma City, OK 73105-4599

Dear Mr. Krewall:

Thank you for your letter asking two questions about how this agency's regulations apply to vehicles used as school buses. Before I answer your specific questions, it may be helpful to discuss some background information.

Federal law regulates the manufacture and sale of new school buses. A "school bus" is defined at 49 CFR /571.3 as "a bus that is sold, or introduced in interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, but does not include a bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation." The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all new school buses. It is a violation of Federal law for any person to manufacture for sale a new school bus that does not comply with these safety standards. It is also a violation of Federal law for any person to sell as a school bus any vehicle that does not comply with all school bus safety standards. On the other hand, without violating any provision of Federal law, a school district may purchase or use a vehicle to transport school children even if the vehicle does not comply with Federal school bus regulations. This is so because the individual States have authority over the activities of a retail purchaser or user of a school bus. (Note, however, that a dealer who sold a vehicle other than a school bus to a school district with knowledge that it is intended to be used to transport school children would violate the Federal law.)

With this background, I will now address the specific questions raised in your letter. First, you asked whether a "transit coach-type vehicle" that was manufactured prior to April 1, 1977 could be used to transport students to and from school. In a subsequent telephone conversation with Joan Tilghman of my staff, you explained that you used the term "transit coach-type vehicle" to mean a bus with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of over 10,000 pounds. As explained above, Federal law does not regulate the use of vehicles as school buses. If there are any limitations on the use of vehicles as school buses in your State, those limitations arise from the laws or regulations of the State of Oklahoma. NHTSA has repeatedly advised the States of our position that the safest way to transport students is in a vehicle that is certified as complying with Federal school bus regulations. We have encouraged States and school districts to consider this fact carefully when deciding what vehicles should be used to transport students to and from school and school-related events.

Your second question asked what must be done to bring a bus with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds "into compliance as a standard Type "D" school bus." In your telephone conversation with Ms. Tilghman, you explained that Oklahoma refers to school buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds as "Type D" school buses. Please note that Federal school bus standards apply only to new school buses. Accordingly, there is no Federal requirement under NHTSA regulations that any person retrofit a used bus to make it comply with our standards for new school buses.

You may wish to know that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), a separate agency within the U.S. Department of Transportation, has proposed regulations to enhance highway safety by regulating operations of "private motor carriers of passengers." (54 Federal Register 7362, February 17, 1989, Private Carriage of Passengers.) FHWA is exploring whether it is appropriate to require retrofit of some buses owned by that category of operators to meet NHTSA vehicle safety standards. While the proposed rule does not address the operations of governmental entities, you may wish to consider the FHWA proposal or comment on it. I enclose a copy for your information, and direct your attention to the comment closing date of June 19, 1989.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Joan Tilghman of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel /ref:571#VSA d:3/3l/89

ID: 1766y

Mr. Les Schreiner
Fresia Engineering Inc.
700 E. Main Street
Suite 1618
Richmond, VA 23219

Dear Mr. Schreiner:

This responds to your letter asking whether some vehicles you plan to import into the United States are subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards set forth in 49 CFR Part 571. These vehicles consist of snow removal vehicles and aircraft towing vehicles. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our statute and regulations to you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards for new "motor vehicles" and new items of "motor vehicle equipment." Accordingly, Fresia's vehicles are subject to the safety standards only if those vehicles are "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the Safety Act. Section 102(3) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) defines a "motor vehicle" as

any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

We have interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Tractors and other agricultural equipment are not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel.

On the other hand, vehicles that use the public roads on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, utility vehicles like the Jeep are plainly motor vehicles, even though they are equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, NHTSA has treated it as a motor vehicle. Further, if a vehicle is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, NHTSA has treated the vehicle as a motor vehicle. This finding was made with respect to dune buggies, notwithstanding the manufacturers' statements that the vehicles were not intended to be used on the public roads.

NHTSA has also stated in many prior interpretation that even vehicles that will regularly be used on the public roads will not be considered "motor vehicles" for the purposes of the Safety Act, if the vehicles have a maximum attainable speed of 20 miles per hour (mph) or less and have an abnormal configuration that readily distinguishes them from other vehicles on the road.

Applying these principles to the vehicles shown in the brochures enclosed with your letter yields the following tentative conclusions.

1. The vehicles identified as "aircraft towing tractors" would not appear to be motor vehicles, assuming that these vehicles are designed and sold solely for use off the public roads.

2. The vehicles identified as "snow removal equipment" appear to fall into two categories. a. One of the categories consists of the models identified as the "F10 NF" and the "Vomero TO-TB-TA-TR," "Fresa Laterale," and "Fresa Integrale HP 200-170" models. These vehicles would not appear to be motor vehicles, because their maximum speed appears to be 20 mph or less and they have a configuration that readily distinguishes them from other vehicles on the road. b. The second category consists of all the other vehicles identified as "snow removal equipment." All the vehicles in this category look like conventional trucks with either snowplow blades or snowblowers attached to the front of the truck and appear capable of speeds greater than 20 mph. We have consistently stated that trucks with snow blowers or snowplow blades on the front end are motor vehicles, and are subject to all of our safety standards applicable to trucks. For your information, I have enclosed an April 7, 1983 letter to Mr. Takeo Shimizu on this subject.

I have identified our conclusions as tentative for several reasons. The Safety Act places the responsibility for classifying any particular vehicle in the first instance on the vehicle manufacturer. Accordingly, NHTSA does not approve or endorse any vehicle classifications before the manufacturer itself has classified the vehicle. NHTSA may reexamine the manufacturer's classifications in the course of any enforcement actions. The agency does, however, tentatively state how it believes vehicles should be classified for the purposes of the safety standards.

Additionally, the tentative opinions expressed in this letter are based on the literature enclosed with your letter. We may change the tentative opinions expressed in this letter if we have occasion to examine the vehicles themselves or otherwise acquire additional information about the vehicles.

Since you are considering importing some vehicles that would appear to be "motor vehicles" into the United States, I have enclosed some additional materials for your information. One is an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles, which highlights the relevant statutes and regulations that apply to such manufacturers and explains how the manufacturer can get copies of the relevant statutes and regulations. The other item is a booklet entitled "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Procedures." This booklet summarizes the basic requirements of our safety standards and shows which standards apply to trucks.

Your letter also indicated that your company would be interested in any "approval procedure or testing process NHTSA would administer" to get your company's vehicles on a qualified products list. NHTSA has no authority to approve or endorse any motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is itself responsible for certifying that each of its products complies with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment to ensure their compliance with the safety standards, and also investigates other alleged defects related to motor vehicle safety.

I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you need any additional information.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

/ ref:VSA d:4/3/89

ID: 17675.nhf

Mr. Jurgen Babirad
Rehabilitation Technology Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 540
Kinderhook, NY 12106

Dear Mr. Babirad:

This responds to your letter requesting permission from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to modify a 1998 Ford E150 van for a driver with quadriplegia due to a spinal cord injury. In your letter, you state that you need to replace the vehicle's original steering column with an extended steering column and install reduced effort steering and brakes to accommodate the driver's limited range of motion. You also state that your client will be driving from his wheelchair. In a phone call with Nicole Fradette of my staff, you explained that you would be installing horizontal steering in the vehicle. Specifically, you request a waiver of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208, Occupant Crash Protection, as the modifications proposed for this particular vehicle will require removing the vehicle's air bag.

While NHTSA cannot provide the specific relief you seek, because we are not authorized to grant waivers of safety standards under these circumstances, we can assure you that we will not institute enforcement proceedings against a commercial entity that modifies the steering wheel and column on a vehicle to accommodate the condition you described.

We would like to begin by explaining that NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. After the first sale of a vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122) requires businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil penalties of up to $1,100 per violation.

There is no procedure by which businesses petition for and are granted permission from NHTSA to modify a motor vehicle. Businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to the make inoperative provision of 49 U.S.C. 30122. However, in certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our requirements to provide some allowances to a business which cannot conform to our requirements when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities.

Extending the vehicle's original steering column and removing the driver's air bag could affect compliance with three standards: Standard No. 203, Impact protection for the driver from the steering control system, Standard No. 204, Steering control rearward displacement, and Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires vehicles to be equipped with specific manual and automatic restraint systems (e.g. seat belts and air bags) and to meet specified injury criteria during a test. Removing the air bag would affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208. We also note that removing the driver's seat to enable your client to drive from his wheelchair would compromise the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 207, Seating systems, which requires vehicles to be equipped with a driver's seat. However, as noted above, in situations such as yours where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition to be justified by public need. Accordingly, NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a business that modifies the steering column, air bag, and driver's seat to accommodate the condition you describe.

We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made. In addition, you should consult with the manufacturer to determine how to disarm the air bag. The manufacturer should be able to provide information on how the modification can be safely performed. We are enclosing a warning label stating that the air bag has been deactivated. For the safety of everyone who may ride in the vehicle, we ask that you affix this label on the sun visor above the deactivated air bag. Finally, if the vehicle is sold, we urge the owner to advise the purchaser that the vehicle has been modified and consider reinstalling the removed safety equipment if appropriate.

You may be interested in knowing that the agency is working on a proposal to regulate the aftermarket modification of vehicles for persons with disabilities by setting out exemptions from the make inoperative prohibition for certain standards. In place of the agency's current approach where each request for exemption from the make inoperative prohibition is reviewed case-by-case, this proposal would give clear guidance to modifiers about principles to follow when considering vehicle modifications to accommodate someone's disabilities. We intend to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking shortly.

If you have other questions or require additional information, please contact Nicole Fradette of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
Warning Label
Ref:VSA
d.5/1/98

ID: 17677-1.pja

Lance Tunick, Esq.
Vehicle Services Consulting, Inc.
P. O. Box 23078
Santa Fe, NM 87502

Dear Mr. Tunick:

This responds to your April 3, 1998, request for reconsideration of our March 31, 1998, interpretation whether Item 4A Glazing, "Rigid Plastic for Use in Side Windows," specified in Standard No. 205, Glazing materials, is permitted in the rear window that is behind a retractable roll bar in a convertible passenger car. Based on the materials you originally sent us, we concluded that rigid plastic glazing was not permitted in that location. However, based on the materials and the issues you raised in your April 3 letter, as well as a videotape and photographs you submitted on July 24, we have concluded that the glazing should be permitted.

As we discussed in our original letter, the relevant question is whether the rear window of the vehicle is part of the convertible top. This is because S5.1.2.11(a)(1) of Standard No. 205 permits item 4A rigid plastic glazing in "[a]ll areas in which Item 4 safety glazing may be used." ANSI Z-26.1a-1980 (incorporated by reference in Standard No. 205) permits item 4 glazing in "[t]he rear windows of convertible passenger car tops."

When we considered whether the window could be considered the rear window of a convertible passenger car top, we based our decision on the materials you submitted. Your original letter attached three color copies of photographs showing the vehicle. The rear window we are discussing retracts automatically behind the rear seats. The one photograph that showed a side view of the window appeared to show the rear window in a partially retracted position on the outside of a broad rollbar. It appeared to be unconnected to the rollbar, with the top edge of the window partially down while the rollbar was fully deployed. Based on this, our March 31 letter concluded that, although your vehicle was a convertible, "the glazing in the vehicle is separate from (not of the same piece as) the convertible top, and therefore is not a rear window of a convertible passenger car top."

The videotape and photographs you sent us in your April 3 letter give a different impression. The newer materials show that the rear window retracts as one unit with the rollbar.⁽¹⁾

When the switch is depressed, the rollbar and window pivot together and drop down behind the rear seats. The window is connected to the rollbar sufficiently that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) considers them to be one unit.

The rollbar is part of the convertible top. The top of the rollbar, when deployed, presents a horizontal exterior surface several inches wide directly over the rear seat passengers. It supports the rear edge of a removeable roof panel (another part of the top) above the front seat occupants. The rear window is physically connected to a part of the top, raises and lowers with the top like other convertibles, and depends on the position of the top for its position on the vehicle. Based on the new materials you have sent us, NHTSA considers the rear window to be part of a convertible passenger car top. Therefore, the rear window can be made of Item 4A rigid plastic glazing.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions about this letter, please contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:205
d.9/16/98

1. What appeared in the original photograph to be the top edge of a partially retracted rear window was actually one image in a timed exposure of the front edge of the rollbar retracting with the window.

ID: 17678.drn

Greg Balmer, Esq.
Staff Counsel
YMCA of the USA
101 North Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606

Dear Mr. Balmer:

This responds to your letter concerning dealers' refusals to sell 15-passenger vans to YMCAs that drop off and pick up school children from school. You ask for clarification of the circumstances when buses are considered "school buses" under Federal law. As explained below, a new bus sold or leased to a YMCA that will use the bus on a significant basis to transport school children to or from school is a "school bus" and must meet Federal motor vehicle safety standards for school buses.

Your letter states the following:

Many YMCAs offer child care and after-school programs for school-aged children and use passenger vans to either drop off or pick up the children from school. Dealers are classifying this use as one of a school bus, and are refusing to sell or lease passenger vans to YMCAs, despite the fact that YMCAs are not schools and that YMCA child care and after-school programs are, under traditional definitions, primarily custodial, and not educational, in nature.

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 bus 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. A 15-passenger van that is likely to be used significantly to transport students is a "school bus."

If a dealer sells or leases (e.g., leases on a regular or long-term basis), a new bus to transport students, the vehicle is a "school bus" and must meet the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (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.

As you are aware, in an interpretation letter of November 20, 1978, to DeKalb Rental/Leasing, Inc. (copy enclosed), NHTSA determined that YMCAs are not schools. In instances where a new bus purchased by a YMCA is not used for transportation "to or from school," or a school-related event (e.g., if the bus will be used only for YMCA summer camps, or YMCA weekend activities where there is no transportation to or from school), a dealer would not be required to sell a school bus.

However, the situation raised in your letter is different. The pertinent issue is not whether the YMCA is a school, but whether the bus will be "significantly" used to transport school children "to or from" school (as described in Section 30125). If the bus will be used for such purpose, a school bus must be sold, regardless of whether such transportation is provided by a "school," a day care facility, or any other entity.

We find it appropriate to address whether buses are "used significantly" to transport students on a case-by-case basis, focusing on the intended use of the vehicle. Your letter states that "[m]any YMCAs offer child care and after-school programs for school-aged children and use passenger vans to either drop off or pick up the children from school." Children attend school five days a week. After-school programs are presumably also offered five days a week. YMCA buses are therefore presumably providing school children with transportation to or from school five days a week or nearly at that rate. NHTSA considers such recurring and consistent use of the YMCA buses to transport students "to or from school" (even if the same students are not transported each day), to constitute a "significant" use of the vehicle. Therefore, it is our position that, when selling or leasing new buses to any child care facility (including YMCAs) for the purpose of taking students to or picking students up from school, dealers must sell or lease buses that meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to "school buses."⁽¹⁾

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. Further, 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. You may want to check with state laws governing private tort liability and consult with your insurance carriers for further information 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
Enclosure
d.7/17/98
ref:VSA#571.3 "school bus only"

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 have been superceded.

ID: 1767y

Mr. Richard L. Story, Sr.
34855 Annapolis Ave.
Wayne, MI 48184-2133

Dear Mr. Story:

This responds to your letter asking whether manufacturers are required to install rear seat lap/shoulder belts in cars originally equipped with rear seat lap belts at no additional cost to the consumer. The answer to this question is no.

The lap belts that are installed in the rear seat of your car are effective in reducing the risk of death and injury in a crash. Based on this agency's analysis of a number of crash data files, we estimate that rear seat lap belts saved about 100 lives and prevented over 1500 serious injuries in 1987 alone. These figures would have been substantially higher if more rear seat occupants used their lap belts. In fact, if everyone had worn their rear seat lap belts each time they rode, those belts would have saved about 660 lives and prevented more than 10,000 serious injuries in 1987 alone.

Even though lap belts have been proven to be effective in reducing the risk of death and injury in a crash, we agree that properly designed lap and shoulder belts have the potential to offer even greater crash protection than lap belts alone. For this reason, we have proposed to require that all new passenger cars sold in the United States be equipped with rear seat lap and shoulder belts beginning in the 1990 model year. For cars made in earlier model years, we have actively sought the car manufacturers' cooperation in providing retrofit kits to interested consumers. You indicated in your letter that Ford offers a rear seat lap and shoulder belt retrofit kit for your car, the 1988 Thunderbird.

We encourage consumers to consider having rear seat lap and shoulder belts fitted into their cars when manufacturers have made a retrofit kit available for the car, because of the additional crash protection afforded to rear seat passengers. However, NHTSA has no authority to require manufacturers to provide these retrofit kits and installation free of charge to the consumer. Thus, the individual consumer who desires the added protection of lap and shoulder belts in the rear seat will have to pay for that additional protection.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

/ref:208 d:4/3/89

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: 17683.ztv

Mr. Nick Tysoe
Rolls-Royce Motor Cars Ltd.
Crewe
Cheshire CW1 3PL
England

Dear Mr. Tysoe:

This is in reply to your fax of March 24, 1998, asking for an interpretation of S7.8.5 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Rolls-Royce is considering a four-lamp headlighting system in which the upper and lower beams would be provided by separate headlamps. You ask if it would be permissible for the lower beam headlamps to be visually/optically aimable and the upper beam headlamps to be mechanically aimable by external means.

This is not permissible under Standard No. 108. We interpret Standard No. 108 as requiring identical headlighting systems on both sides of a new vehicle, including their aiming features. I enclose a copy of a letter dated March 10, 1998, that this Office sent to Herr Spingler of Robert Bosch GmbH which explains the agency's views.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:108
d.6/19/98

ID: 17684.ztv

Mr. Peter Gross
Electrical Engineer
Spartan Motors
P.O. Box 440
Charlotte, MI 48813

Dear Mr. Gross:

We are replying to your letter of March 25, 1998, asking a question regarding motor vehicle lighting on motor homes wider than 80 inches, which will have rear combination stop/turn signal lamps. Specifically, you write that "when the hazard warning lights are activated the brake signal will not override the flashing tail lamps" (we believe you mean flashing turn signal lamps). You state that this is inconsistent with all vehicles Spartan has built with rear combination stop/turn signal lamps and inquire whether the lack of override is acceptable.

The stop lamp and turn signal lamp standards that apply to vehicles whose overall width is 80 inches or more are incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, and are, respectively, SAE Standard J1398 MAY85 Stop Lamps For Use on Motor Vehicles 2032 mm Or More In Overall Width, and SAE Standard J1395 APR85 Turn Signal Lamps For Use on Motor Vehicles 2032 mm Or More In Overall Width. Paragraph 5.4.2 of both J1398 and J1395 address the performance priorities of combination stop/turn signal lamps. These paragraphs state that "when a stop signal is optically combined with the turn signal, the circuit shall be such that the stop signal cannot be turned on if the turn signal is flashing" (the same is required by paragraphs 5.4.2 of SAE J586 FEB84 and SAE J588 NOV84 for combination stop/turn signal lamps on narrower vehicles). Because hazard warning signal lamps operate through the turn signal lamp system, many vehicles are wired so that the stop signal cannot be turned on if all the turn signal lamps (i.e., the hazard warning lamp system) are flashing.

However, Standard No. 108 and the SAE have no requirements per se for the hazard warning system. This means that a vehicle may be wired with a separate hazard warning system circuit so that it is subordinate to, and overriden by, the stop signal when both are operated simultaneously.

However, the stop lamp must not override the individual turn signals when they are operating simultaneously. This may explain the apparent inconsistency that you noted in Spartan production.

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.6/3/98