ID: 86-2.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/24/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. T. Chikada

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. T. Chikada Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept. Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan

Dear Mr. Chikada:

This is in reply to your letter of February 18, 1986, asking whether it is permissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to equip a motorcycle with an auxiliary lighting device described in your letter. The device is mounted on an optional trunk and performs the functions of a supplementary taillamp and stop lamp, though its maximum intensities in either mode is less than the minimum required by Standard No. 108 for each such mode.

Under paragraph S4.1.3. a device such as you have described is permissible as original vehicle equipment if it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. From your diagram and information, it does not appear that these supplementary taillamp and stop lamp functions will impair the effectiveness of the primary ones, and therefore paragraph S4.1.3 would not prohibit your device.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

February 18, 1986

Att.: Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington D.C. 20590 U. S. A.

Re. : Installation of decorative extra lighting device to the vehicle, which is not specified in FMVSS No. 108

Dear Ms. Jones,

We are thinking of producing a decorative extra lighting device which is not specified in FMVSS No. 108.

As shown in the attached sheet, this decorative device will be mounted on the rear face of an optional motorcycle rear trunk. Emitted light color of this extra lighting device is red, and its size is smaller than the tail & stop lamp required in FMVSS No.108. Its function is interlocked with a tail lamp. Its maximum luminous intensity is lower than the minimum photometric requirement of the tail lamp. When the stop lamp is lit, it increases the luminous intensity, but the maximum is lower than the minimum photometric requirement of the stop lamp.

We would like to ask you whether it is permitted to equip a motorcycle with the above mentioned accessory lamp.

We believe that this device have a good effect on the safety by increasing the visibility from upside.

We are looking forward to your advice.

Sincerely yours,

Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

T. Chikada, Manager, Automotive Lighting

ID: nht76-3.32

DATE: 04/02/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Hackney & Sons Inc.

COPYEE: BUREAU OF MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of December 2, 1975, concerning the duties of a manufacturer of a beverage trailer that, when fully loaded, would overload a light-duty truck by which it might be towed.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not directly regulate the use of motor vehicles. Instead, it regulates their manufacture, with a view towards their expected and intended uses. If a trailer manufacturer knows that his product is likely to be towed by a vehicle of insufficient load-carrying capacity, the NHTSA expects him to take reasonalbe steps, short of refraining from production, to minimize the likelihood of such misuse. Otherwise, the trailer would be considered to contain a defect relating to motor vehicle safety.

In the first hypothetical situation presented in your letter, there would be no violation of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards or regulations. In Situation 2, we are not prepared to state categorically whether or not the trailer manufacturer could be obliged to assume defect responsibility. Such responsibility might be minimized assuming that the written warning to which you refer clearly indicates (i) what load ratings are necessary as a minimum for the towing vehicle and (ii) that the trailer must not be towed by a vehicle without such load ratings. Nevertheless, the lines of responsibility between two such parties are not that clear-cut, especially where the trailer manufacturer knowingly delivers for introduction into interstate commerce a vehicle which immediately results in a serious overload situation.

In Situation 3, the trailer would probably contain a safety-related defect, because its advertising would promote its misuse in a way that would create a safety hazard. In Situation 4, the trailer would probably also be considered to contain a safety-related defect, because the total payload capacity could be calculated, and the warnings to limit the actual load to the limits of the towing vehicle could not reasonably be expected to be observed.

You have also asked more generally for a description of the circumstances under which trailers of this type might be considered to contain safety-related defects. The NHTSA cannot define in advance all such possible circumstances. Among them, however, would be those in which the owner's manual lacked the warning described above for Situation 2 and those in which the trailer's advertising promoted its misuse.

I have forwarded a copy of your letter to the Federal Highway Administration's Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety for examination of the possibility that the user of a mismatched combination of vehicles, if he is an interstate carrier, would be in violation of their regulations. There may also be State laws prohibiting local carriers from making such combinations.

Thank you for your concern for safety on the highways. We especially appreciate your realization that a manufacturer can have ethical duties that go beyond his legal duties.

ID: 7252

Mr. Timothy C. Murphy
Chairman, TSEI Engineering Committee (Lights)
Transportation Safety Equipment Institute
P.O. Box 1638
Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632-0638

Dear Mr. Murphy:

This responds to your letter of April 30. 1992, requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You have asked "whether the lens leg of various lamp assemblies may be included in the calculation" of the minimum effective projected luminous lens area required of certain lamps by Standard No. 108.

Specifically, you have enclosed "Figure 1" which "shows that the last optic against the lens leg projects light outward beyond the lens leg and yet the light may be beneficial to meeting the twenty degree outward test points for stop, tail, turn lamps." Accordingly you have concluded "that this light, though low in intensity due to its distance from the filament, may be significant as far as meeting the photometric requirements of the lamp."

NHTSA adopted a definition of "effective projected luminous lens area" on May 15, 1990 (55 FR 20158), to mean "that area of the projection on a plane perpendicular to the lamp axis of that portion of the light-emitting surface that directs light to the photometric test pattern. . . ." No exceptions were made to the definition. In rejecting a petition for reconsideration to include lens parts, such as the rim (or leg), in the calculation of lens area in those instances where the rim transmits unobstructed light, NHTSA explained on December 5, 1990 (55 FR 50182), that areas that do not contribute "significantly" to light output should not be included in the lens area calculation. It commented that "the optical parts of the reflector and lens are designed to achieve that purpose", and that "lens rims or legs do not contribute to the optical design" but instead "take up surface area that can reduce the area of the optically designed part of the lens if they are allowed to be included in the computation of minimum lens area."

In the comments that both you and we have quoted above, NHTSA has tried to differentiate between optical parts that are specifically designed to contribute to the optical design of a lamp and those whose contribution is only incidental and secondary. Those comments express clearly the agency's opinion that a lens leg, such as shown in your Figure 1, is an optical part that contributes only incidentally to the optical design of a lamp. However, the agency's opinions, as expressed in the preambles on this subject, are not the most definitive answer to your question. Instead, with reference to Figure 1, whether the additional lens area may be included in the computation of the minimum effective projected luminous lens area is determined by the definition of that term set forth in S4 of Standard No. 108. If the lens leg in Figure 1 meets that definition, it may be included in the computation. If not, it may not be included in the computation.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref.108 d:5/27/92

ID: nht92-6.32

DATE: May 27, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Timothy C. Murphy -- Chairman, TSEI Engineering Committee (Lights), Transportation Safety Equipment Institute

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/30/92 from Timothy C. Murphy to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7252)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of April 30, 1992, requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You have asked "whether the lens leg of various lamp assemblies may be included in the calculation" of the minimum effective projected luminous lens area required of certain lamps by Standard No. 108.

Specifically, you have enclosed "Figure 1" which "shows that the last optic against the lens leg projects light outward beyond the lens leg and yet the light may be beneficial to meeting the twenty degree outward test points for stop, tail, turn lamps." Accordingly you have concluded "that this light, though low in intensity due to its distance from the filament, may be significant as far as meeting the photometric requirements of the lamp."

NHTSA adopted a definition of "effective projected luminous lens area" on May 15, 1990 (55 FR 20158), to mean "that area of the projection on a plane perpendicular to the lamp axis of that portion of the light-emitting surface that directs light to the photometric test pattern. . . ." No exceptions were made to the definition. In rejecting a petition for reconsideration to include lens parts, such as the rim (or leg), in the calculation of lens area in those instances where the rim transmits unobstructed light, NHTSA explained on December 5, 1990 (55 FR 50182), that areas that do not contribute "significantly" to light output should not be included in the lens area calculation. It commented that "the optical parts of the reflector and lens are designed to achieve that purpose", and that "lens rims or legs do not contribute to the optical design" but instead "take up surface area that can reduce the area of the optically designed part of the lens if they are allowed to be included in the computation of minimum lens area."

In the comments that both you and we have quoted above, NHTSA has tried to differentiate between optical parts that are specifically designed to contribute to the optical design of a lamp and those whose contribution is only incidental and secondary. Those comments express clearly the agency's opinion that a lens leg, such as shown in your Figure 1, is an optical part that contributes only incidentally to the optical design of a lamp. However, the agency's opinions, as expressed in the preambles on this subject, are not the most definitive answer to your question. Instead, with reference to Figure 1, whether the additional lens area may be included in the computation of the minimum effective projected luminous lens area is determined by the definition of that term set forth in S4 of Standard No. 108. If the lens leg in Figure 1 meets that definition, it may be included in the computation. If not, it may not be included in the computation.

ID: nht94-5.22

DATE: May 18, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Paul L. Anderson -- President, Van-Con, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 5/2/94 From Paul Anderson To John Womack (OCC-9923)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Anderson:

This responds to your letter of May 2, 1994, requesting information on which of the recent amendments to Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (57 FR 49413; November 2, 1992, and 57 FR 57020; December 2, 1992), would apply to Type A-1 school buses. Your letter notes that Type A-1 school buses have a capacity of 16-20 passengers and a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of less than 10,000 pounds.

The recent amendments to Standard No. 217 set new requirements for the provision of emergency exits based upon the seating capacity of the school bus (S5.2), set performance requirements for emergency exit window and emergency roof exit release (S5.3), revised the extension requirements for side doors and set extension requirements for emergency roof exits (S5.4), and revised the identification requirements (S5.5). The effect of each of these amendments on Type A-1 school buses is discussed separately below.

Provision of Emergency Exits (S5.2)

The recent amendments listed above revised S5.2.3 to specify the number and type of exits required on school buses, including Type A-1 school buses. This section states:

The area in square centimeters of the unobstructed openings for emergency exit shall collectively amount to at least 432 times the number of designated seating positions in the bus. The amount of emergency exit area credited to an emergency exit is based on the daylight opening of the exit opening.

The section also specifies the type of emergency exits which must be installed to meet this requirement. All school buses, including Type A-1 school buses, are required to have either a rear emergency exit door or a side emergency exit door and a rear push-out window. These are the same exits required by Standard

2

No. 217 before the recent amendments. After deducting the daylight opening of the front service door and the required exit(s), any remaining exit area must be provided by installing additional exits in the following order: (1) a side emergency exit door, (2) a emergency roof exit, and (3) any combination of emergency exit doors, emergency roof exits, and emergency exit windows.

Please note that, while these new requirements apply to all school buses, it is unlikely that a 20 passenger school bus will require additional exits. Under the new requirements, a school bus with 21 designated seating positions (20 passengers plus the driver) is required to provide 9,072 square centimeters of exit area. A school bus with a front service door and either of the mandatory options (rear emergency exit door or side emergency exit door and rear push-out window) should easily exceed this amount. To illustrate, in the past, the agency has estimated that the average front service door has a daylight opening of 12,916 square centimeters. For school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, a rear emergency door that is the minimum size required to meet the extension requirements has a daylight opening of 6,270 square centimeters. A side emergency door that is the minimum size required to meet the extension requirements has a daylight opening of 6,954 square centimeters. A rear push-out window that is the minimum size required has a daylight opening of 5,002 square centimeters.

Emergency Exit Release (S5.3)

The recent amendments added performance requirements for the release mechanisms for emergency exit windows and emergency roof exits on school buses. As explained above, the recent amendments should not require either of these types of exits to be installed on Type A-1 school buses. However, if either of these types of exits are voluntarily installed on Type A-1 school buses, the release mechanisms must comply with these requirements. In the recent amendments to Standard No. 217, some of the performance requirements, including the release requirements in S5.3, apply to "each" emergency exit. This language extends these requirements to any emergency exit door in a school bus, including voluntarily installed ones. Other requirements apply to "required" emergency exits. (See, for example, S5.5.3(c) discussed below.) Those requirements do not apply to voluntarily installed emergency exits.

Emergency Exit Extension (S5.4)

The amendments of the extension requirements also apply to Type A-1 school buses. The recent amendments revised the extension requirements for side doors on school buses with a GVWR of more than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) and set extension requirements for emergency roof exits on school buses with a GVWR

3

of more than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds). These amendments also affect school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, as the requirements specify that these vehicles are to comply with the same requirements as school buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds (except for the minimum size for rear emergency exit doors).

If a Type A-1 school bus has a side emergency exit door, that exit is required to comply with the amended requirements concerning access to the exit. Under the new requirements, side emergency exit doors are required to provide an opening at least 114 centimeters high and 61 centimeters wide. In addition, an aisle 30 centimeters wide (referenced to the rear edge of the door) must be provided from the longitudinal centerline of the bus to the exit. A seat bottom is allowed within this aisle if it flips up when not in use such that it no longer is within the aisle. Finally, no portion of a seat or restraining barrier may block access to the latch.

In addition, if an emergency roof exit is installed in a Type A-1 school bus, it is required to provide an opening at least 41 centimeters high and 41 centimeters wide under the new requirements.

Finally, all emergency exit doors, including emergency exit doors on Type A-1 school buses, are required to have a positive door opening device.

Emergency Exit Identification (S5.5)

Finally, the recent amendments revised the identification requirements (S5.5) for exits on all school buses, including Type A-1 school buses. As revised, each required emergency exit is required to be marked with the words "Emergency Door" or "Emergency Exit," as appropriate. For emergency exit doors, the location of this marking was not changed by these amendments. For emergency window exits and emergency roof exits, location requirements were added. In addition, each required emergency exit must be outlined with retroreflective tape. Please note however, that the identification requirements do not apply to voluntarily installed emergency exits (i.e., exits in excess of those required by S5.2.3).

You should be aware that there was a discrepancy concerning the size of the retroreflective tape caused by the metric conversion in the final rule. I have enclosed is a copy of a July 7, 1993 letter to Mr. Thomas D. Turner of the Blue Bird Body Company which discusses this issue. As explained in that letter, we plan to issue a correction notice of the November 2, 1992 rule that would specify a minimum size of 2.5 cm for the tape. Until the correction is issued, NHTSA will not take enforcement measures

4

regarding tape size against a manufacturer who uses 1 inch wide retroreflective tape.

To summarize and answer your specific questions, Type A-1 school buses typically would not be affected by the recent amendment requiring either emergency roof exits or emergency window exits. However, required emergency exits (including a rear emergency exit door) are required to be outlined with retroreflective tape. In addition, all exits (required and voluntary) must comply with the new performance requirements for release and extension.

With respect to your receipt of an oral interpretation from agency staff, I would also like to emphasize that, to the extent there are questions concerning the meaning of any NHTSA standard or regulation, the only agency interpretations which are authoritative and which therefore can be relied upon by manufacturers are those issued in writing by the Chief Counsel. We have reminded agency staff not to make formal, or informal, oral statements that might be misinterpreted by manufacturers as official agency guidance on which they may safely rely.

Please note that recent delay of the effective date of the recent amendments applies only to provision of emergency exits (S5.2) (59 FR 22997; May 4, 1994). The other amendments were effective on May 2, 1994. I also note that the May 4 notice does not state "that it only applys (sic) to School Buses with capacity of 24 to 90 passengers." The notice does refer to tables in a previous NPRM which listed the types of exits required under the proposal for buses with a capacity in that range.

I have also enclosed a copy of the recent final rules for your use. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Enclosures

ID: nht88-2.83

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/01/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: ALICE COLLINS

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 01/15/88, TO ERIKA Z JONES, FROM ALICE COLLINS

TEXT: Dear Mrs. Collins:

This is a response to your letter of January 15, 1988. I apologize for the delay in responding to your letter. In your letter, you described yourself as a parent of school-age children, and as a volunteer who drives children to school-related activitie s in your 1986 Plymouth Voyager mini-van. You stated that in the 1986-1987 school year, the U.S. Department of Transportation decided that Voyager Mini-Vans were "unsafe." You go on to say that "the classification of M.P.V. was used on all mini-vans," and suggest that it is a mistake to characterize your Voyager as a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV) because it is more like a passenger car than a truck. You concluded by asking us to change the decision that the Plymouth Voyager mini-van is unsafe. You raised other concerns in telephone conversations with Joan Tilghman, a member of my staff. First, I will address the request in your letter that the Department change what you believe is a decision concerning the safety of your vehicle. Then, I wi ll address the matters you raised in conversations with Ms. Tilghman.

Let me begin by assuring you that the agency has never stated that the Plymouth Voyager is "unsafe." Except in the context of a specific enforcement proceeding, NHTSA does not make blanket determinations that vehicles are "safe" or "unsafe." Instead, we establish safety standards, and manufacturers must certify that each of their vehicles complies with all applicable standards. If we determine that a group of vehicles fails to comply with an applicable standard, or that a group of vehicles contains a d efect related to motor vehicle safety, we order the manufacturer to recall the vehicles. Again, we make these determinations only in the context of an enforcement proceeding. There has been no such proceeding with respect to the 1986 Plymouth Voyager.

With respect to your suggestion that it was a mistake to classify the Voyager as an MPV, it is the manufacturer's responsibility to determine, in the first instance, what a vehicle's classification should be. Chyrsler has classified the Voyager as an MP V, and so must certify that the Voyager meets all Federal safety standards applicable to that vehicle

2 class. We have no information which suggests that Chrysler's classification of the Voyager is incorrect under our classification criteria.

In your conversations with Ms. Tilghman, you explained that the Tallahassee, Florida school district will not permit parents to transport school children to school-sponsored or school-related events in MPVs, such as the Voyager. However, you stated that the district will permit parents to transport children to school-sponsored or school-related events in passenger cars. You said that the school district is following a recommendation by this agency that Florida school districts not condone transporting children to school-related events in buses other than certified school buses. Your understanding is that NHTSA made this recommendation to the State of Florida in an April 25, 1986 letter to Mr. Arnold Spencer, and repeated the recommendation in an Augu st 7, 1986 letter to Mr. Larry McEntire. I have enclosed copies of both letters for your information.

As you see, NHTSA made no such recommendation in either letter. Instead, we explained that we do not regulate the use of vehicles by owners, nor do we require the use of particular vehicles for particular purposes. There is no Federal prohibition again st vehicle owners using their own vehicles to transport school children to school-related events. We also noted that the individual States have authority to establish any such regulations, in accordance with the principles of federalism set out in our C onstitution. The State of Florida had already made its own decision to adopt and implement this policy before we were contacted by either Mr. Spencer or Mr. McEntire on this subject. Any changes to that policy would also reflect a decision by the State of Florida, not the Federal government.

In the letter to Mr. Spencer, we made the observation that Florida's policy that school boards not condone transporting school children in vehicles that are not certified as complying with our school bus safety standards, "is consistent with our belief t hat school buses certified to our school bus safety standards are the safest means of transportation for school children." This was not a recommendation to the State of Florida, but a statement of our belief about the superior safety afforded to school c hildren by buses that are certified as complying with our school bus standards. That belief continues to be supported by data showing that school buses continue to have one of the lowest fatality rates for any class of motor vehicle. Large school buses are the safest form of ground transportation in the United States because the passenger seats are "compartmentalized" (special seat padding and spacing, and high seat backs); and because of the vehicle's size and weight (which generally reduce an occupa nt's exposure to injury-threatening crash forces), the drivers' training and experience, and the extra care other motorists usually take when they are near a school bus.

3

I am sending you information on the agency's New Car Assessment Program (NCAP). NCAP is an experimental program in which we test light-duty vehicles, MPVs among them, to see how well they perform in a high-speed crash. You will find test results for veh icles that NHTSA has tested over the past few years, including results for the 1984 and 1987 Plymouth Voyager. Also, you will find the agency's April, 1988 report to Congress titled, "Safety Programs for Light Trucks and Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles. "

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

ENCLOSURE

Sincerely,

ID: 2792o

Mrs. Alice Collins
703 Cohassett Ave.
Lake Wales, FL 33853

Dear Mrs. Collins:

This is a response to your letter of January 15, 1988. I apologize for the delay in responding to your letter. In your letter, you described yourself as a parent of school-age children, and as a volunteer who drives children to school-related activities in your 1986 Plymouth Voyager mini-van. You stated that in the 1986-1987 school year, the U.S. Department of Transportation decided that Voyager Mini-Vans were "unsafe." You go on to say that "the classification of M.P.V. was used on all mini-vans," and suggest that it is a mistake to characterize your Voyager as a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV) because it is more like a passenger car than a truck. You concluded by asking us to change the decision that the Plymouth Voyager mini-van is unsafe. You raised other concerns in telephone conversations with Joan Tilghman, a member of my staff. First, I will address the request in your letter that the Department change what you believe is a decision concerning the safety of your vehicle. Then, I will address the matters you raised in conversations with Ms. Tilghman.

Let me begin by assuring you that the agency has never stated that the Plymouth Voyager is "unsafe." Except in the context of a specific enforcement proceeding, NHTSA does not make blanket determinations that vehicles are "safe" or "unsafe." Instead, we establish safety standards, and manufacturers must certify that each of their vehicles complies with all applicable standards. If we determine that a group of vehicles fails to comply with an applicable standard, or that a group of vehicles contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety, we order the manufacturer to recall the vehicles. Again, we make these determinations only in the context of an enforcement proceeding. There has been no such proceeding with respect to the 1986 Plymouth Voyager.

With respect to your suggestion that it was a mistake to classify the Voyager as an MPV, it is the manufacturer's responsibility to determine, in the first instance, what a vehicle's classification should be. Chyrsler has classified the Voyager as an MPV, and so must certify that the Voyager meets all Federal safety standards applicable to that vehicle class. We have no information which suggests that Chrysler's classification of the Voyager is incorrect under our classification criteria.

In your conversations with Ms. Tilghman, you explained that the Tallahassee, Florida school district will not permit parents to transport school children to school-sponsored or school-related events in MPVs, such as the Voyager. However, you stated that the district will permit parents to transport children to school-sponsored or school-related events in passenger cars. You said that the school district is following a recommendation by this agency that Florida school districts not condone transporting children to school-related events in buses other than certified school buses. Your understanding is that NHTSA made this recommendation to the State of Florida in an April 25, 1986 letter to Mr.Arnold Spencer, and repeated the recommendation in an August 7, 1986 letter to Mr. Larry McEntire. I have enclosed copies of both letters for your information.

As you see, NHTSA made no such recommendation in either letter. Instead, we explained that we do not regulate the use of vehicles by owners, nor do we require the use of particular vehicles for particular purposes. There is no Federal prohibition against vehicle owners using their own vehicles to transport school children to school-related events. We also noted that the individual States have authority to establish any such regulations, in accordance with the principles of federalism set out in our Constitution. The State of Florida had already made its own decision to adopt and implement this policy before we were contacted by either Mr.Spencer or Mr. McEntire on this subject. Any changes to that policy would also reflect a decision by the State of Florida, not the Federal government.

In the letter to Mr. Spencer, we made the observation that Florida's policy that school boards not condone transporting school children in vehicles that are not certified as complying with our school bus safety standards, "is consistent with our belief that school buses certified to our school bus safety standards are the safest means of transportation for school children." This was not a recommendation to the State of Florida, but a statement of our belief about the superior safety afforded to school children by buses that are certified as complying with our school bus standards. That belief continues to be supported by data showing that school buses continue to have one of the lowest fatality rates for any class of motor vehicle. Large school buses are the safest form of ground transportation in the United States because the passenger seats are "compartmentalized" (special seat padding and spacing, and high seat backs); and because of the vehicle's size and weight (which generally reduce an occupant's exposure to injury-threatening crash forces), the drivers' training and experience, and the extra care other motorists usually take when they are near a school bus.

I am sending you information on the agency's New Car Assessment Program (NCAP). NCAP is an experimental program in which we test light-duty vehicles, MPVs among them, to see how well they perform in a high-speed crash. You will find test results for vehicles that NHTSA has tested over the past few years, including results for the 1984 and 1987 Plymouth Voyager. Also, you will find the agency's April, 1988 report to Congress titled, "Safety Programs for Light Trucks and Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles."

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:VSA#571 d:8/1/88

ID: 9977

Mr. David Ori, Manager
Bureau of Motor Vehicles
Vehicle Control Division, Room 104
T&S Building
Harrisburg, PA 17120

Dear Mr. Ori:

This responds to your letter to Mr. James Gilkey of this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, requesting confirmation of your understanding of the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 to certain limousines. You were concerned about the permissibility of applying sun screening or window tinting to such vehicles during the original manufacturing process, and during the "second stage or alteration phase of the manufacturing process."

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Under this authority, NHTSA issued Standard No. 205, "Glazing Materials," to specify performance requirements for various types of glazing and to specify the location in the vehicles in which each item of glazing may be used. One provision in Standard No. 205 requires a minimum of 70 percent light transmittance in any glazing area requisite for driving visibility. The primary purpose of this requirement is to ensure adequate visibility through the vehicle's windows, thereby reducing the risk of a motor vehicle crash.

NHTSA does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, each manufacturer is responsible for "self-certifying" that its products meet all applicable safety standards. NHTSA's certification regulations are set forth in 49 CFR Part 567. Under this regulation, each manufacturer is required to certify that its motor vehicles comply with all applicable Federal safety standards, including Standard No. 205. As you correctly state, second stage manufacturers and alterers also have certification responsibilities. Specifically, a final stage manufacturer is responsible for certifying a vehicle pursuant to 49 CFR '567.5. Accordingly, you are correct that a final stage manufacturer is

required to certify that its finished product, including the glazing materials, complies with all applicable Federal safety standards.

A person who alters a previously certified new vehicle also must certify that the altered vehicle complies with all applicable standards. 49 CFR '567.7. However, this provision does not apply to the "addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components ... or minor finishing operations, such as painting." NHTSA views the addition of window tint film as a "minor finishing operation." Accordingly, a person adding such tint film would not be considered an alterer and therefore would not be subject to certification responsibilities.

However, aside from certification responsibilities, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. ' 30112a, "a person may not...sell, offer for sale, [or] introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce...any motor vehicle...unless the vehicle...complies with [all applicable standards]." Thus, it would be a violation of the statute to sell a new vehicle whose windows which are requisite for driving visibility had been tinted to allow less than 70 percent light transmittance.

Moreover, with respect to vehicles that are no longer new, a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business "may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard." Thus, a person in any of these categories may not apply tint film that would cause the light transmittance of the glazing requisite for driving visibility to be under 70 percent.

You stated your belief that limousines that seat less than 10 persons may not be equipped with any sun screening or window tinting product, since such products would violate Standard No. 205. We wish to clarify one aspect of your statement. Limousines that seat less than 10 persons are considered "passenger cars" under NHTSA's regulations. NHTSA considers all windows in a passenger car to be requisite for driving visibility; accordingly, all windows in a passenger car/limousine must have a minimum 70 percent light transmittance. However, please note that tinting may be used in these vehicles, provided the tinted windows meet the minimum 70 percent light transmittance requirement.

You further asked whether a limousine that seats 10 or more persons is subject to the Federal window tinting requirements. A limousine with a capacity of more than 10 persons is considered a "bus" under our regulations. There are specific requirements in Standard No. 205 that apply to buses (or bus/limousines). Under these requirements, only the windshield and the windows to the immediate left and right of the driver are considered to be requisite for driving visibility (if they are equipped with dual outside mirrors satisfying section S6.1(b) of Standard No. 111), and thus subject to the minimum 70 percent light transmittance requirement. The windows to the rear of the driver in a bus/limousine, including the rear side and rear windows, are not required to meet the light transmittance requirement. Accordingly, Standard No. 205 does not prohibit the use of tinted glazing materials for bus/limousine windows to the rear of the driver when the vehicle is equipped with dual outside mirrors larger than those usually used on passenger cars.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:205#567 d:9/7/94 The agency defines "passenger car" as a "motor vehicle with motive power, except a multipurpose passenger vehicle, motorcycle, or trailer, designed for carrying 10 persons or less." In turn, "multipurpose passenger vehicle" is defined as a "motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." A "bus" is defined as a "motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons."

ID: 2967yy

Mr. Howard "Mac" Dashney
Pupil Transportation Consultant
Michigan Department of Education
P.O. Box 30008
Lansing, Michigan 48909

Dear Mr. Dashney:

This responds to your letter of February 19, 1991. In your letter you asked several questions regarding the purchase, sale, and use of motor vehicles used to transport students to and from school and related events. Where two or more questions concern a common issue, they are addressed by a single response.

Question 1: Do Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) apply to multi-purpose vehicles with seating positions for more than 10 passengers, passenger vans, used to transport students to and from school and related events?

Question 5: Are there FMVSS's in effect for occupants of sedans, station wagons, or mini-vans with seating positions for fewer than 10 passengers used to transport students to and from school and related events?

The answer to both questions is yes. NHTSA has issued FMVSS covering all of the types of motor vehicles mentioned in your questions. The application section of each FMVSS indicates which types of motor vehicles are required to comply with its provisions.

The motor vehicles you refer to in Question 1 are considered "schoolbuses" by this agency. A "school bus" is a motor vehicle designed to carry 11 or more persons, including a driver, and sold for transporting students to and from school and school-related events (49 CFR 571.3). New school buses must comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) for "buses" and also those for "school buses." The following is a list of the FMVSS that include requirements for school buses:

Standards No. 101 through No. 104; Standard No. 105 (school buses with hydraulic service brake systems); Standards No. 106 through No. 108; Standards No. 111 through 113; Standard No. 115; Standard No. 116 (school buses with hydraulic service brake systems); Standard No. 119; Standard No. 120; Standard No. 121 (school buses with air brake systems); Standard No. 124; Standards No. 201 through No. 204 (school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less); Standard No. 205; Standards No. 207 through No. 210; Standard No. 212 (school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less); Standard No. 217; Standard No. 219 (school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less); Standard No. 220; Standard No. 221 (school buses with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds); and Standards No. 222, 301, and 302.

These standards are part of 49 CFR 571. I have enclosed information on how you can obtain copies of the FMVSS.

Regarding the motor vehicles mentioned in Question 5, definitions of other motor vehicle types are also found in 49 CFR 571.3. For instance, "multipurpose passenger vehicle" is defined 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" (49 CFR 571.3(b)). "Passenger car" is defined as " a motor vehicle with motive power, except a multipurpose passenger vehicle, motorcycle, or trailer, designed for carrying 10 persons or less" (49 CFR 571.3(b)).

Question 2: Is it legal for automobile manufacturers or dealers to lease or sell passenger vans to school districts or private fleet operators when the purpose of those vehicles is to transport students to and from school and related events?

Question 6: Is it legal for automobile manufacturers or dealers to lease or sell sedans, station wagons, and mini-vans to school districts or private fleet operators for the purpose of transporting students to and from school and related events?

Assuming that the particular vehicle manufactured or sold complies with all FMVSS that apply to that type of vehicle, the answer to your question is yes. Note however, that unlike other motor vehicle types, a school bus is defined by both the vehicle's seating capacity and its intended use. If a manufacturer or dealer is aware that the intended use of a vehicle is to transport students to and from school and related events, it is a violation of Federal law to sell a vehicle with a capacity of 11 or more persons, including the driver, unless the vehicle complies with all FMVSS applicable to school buses.

Question 3: Does a school district or private fleet operator increase its liability risk if it purchases passenger vans to transport students to and from school and related events?

Question 4: Does a school district or private fleet operator increase its liability risk if it uses passenger vans to transport students to and from school and related events?

Question 7: Does a school district or private fleet operator increase its liability risk if it purchases sedans, station wagons, or mini-vans to transport students to and from school and related events?

Question 8: Does a school district or private fleet operator increase its liability risk if it uses sedans, station wagons, or mini-vans to transport students to and from school and related events?

Liability risk is a question of state, not Federal law. I am not qualified to offer an opinion on how these issues would be resolved under Michigan law. I suggest that you contact the Attorney General for the State of Michigan for an opinion on the application of Michigan law to these situations. You may also wish to consult your agency's attorney and insurance company for more information.

I must emphasize, however, NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students. In addition, I encourage your school districts to give their most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting students in vehicles other than school buses.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:VSA#571.3 "school bus" d:4/l2/9l

ID: nht94-4.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 7, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: David Ori, Manager -- Bureau of Motor Vehicles, Vehicle Control Division, Harrisburg, PA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 05/06/94 from David L. Ori to Jim Gilkey (OCC 9977)

TEXT: This responds to your letter to Mr. James Gilkey of this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, requesting confirmation of your understanding of the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 to certain limousines. You were co ncerned about the permissibility of applying sun screening or window tinting to such vehicles during the original manufacturing process, and during the "second stage or alteration phase of the manufacturing process."

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Und er this authority, NHTSA issued Standard No. 205, "Glazing Materials," to specify performance requirements for various types of glazing and to specify the location in the vehicles in which each item of glazing may be used. One provision in Standard No. 205 requires a minimum of 70 percent light transmittance in any glazing area requisite for driving visibility. The primary purpose of this requirement is to ensure adequate visibility through the vehicles's windows, thereby reducing the risk of a motor v ehicle crash.

NHTSA does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, each manufacturer is responsible for "self-certifying" that its products meet all applicable safety standards. NHTSA's certification regulations are set forth in 49 CFR Part 567. Under this regulation, each manufacturer is required to certify that its motor vehicles comply with all applicable Federal safety standards, including Standard No. 205. As you correctly state, second stage manufacturers and alterers also have cer tification responsibilities. Specifically, a final stage manufacturer is responsible for certifying a vehicle pursuant to 49 CFR @ 567.5. Accordingly, you are correct that a final stage manufacturer is required to certify that its finished product, incl uding the glazing materials, complies with all applicable Federal safety standards.

A person who alters a previously certified new vehicle also must certify that the altered vehicle complies with all applicable standards. 49 CFR @ 567.7. However, this provision does not apply to the "addition, substitution, or removal of readily attach able components ... or minor finishing operations, such as painting." NHTSA views the addition of window tint film as a "minor finishing operation." Accordingly, a person adding such tint film would not be considered an alterer and therefore would not be subject to certification responsibilities.

However, aside from certification responsibilities, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. @ 30112a, "a person may not ... sell, offer for sale, [or] introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce ... any motor vehicle...unless the vehicle...complies with [ all applicable standards]." Thus, it would be a violation of the statute to sell a new vehicle whose windows which are requisite for driving visibility had been tinted to allow less than 70 percent light transmittance.

Moreover, with respect to vehicles that are no longer new, a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business "may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor veh icle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard." Thus, a person in any of these categories may not apply tint film that would cause the light transmittance of the glazing requisite for driving visibility to be under 70 perc ent.

You stated your belief that limousines that seat less than 10 persons may not be equipped with any sun screening or window tinting product, since such products would violate Standard No. 205. We wish to clarify one aspect of your statement. Limousines that seat less than 10 persons are considered "passenger cars" n1 under NHTSA's regulations. NHTSA considers all windows in a passenger car to be requisite for driving visibility; accordingly, all windows in a passenger car/limousine must have a minimum 70 percent light transmittance. However, please note that tinting may be used in these vehicles, provided the tinted windows meet the minimum 70 percent light transmittance requirement.

n1 The agency defines "passenger car" as a "motor vehicle with motive power, except a multipurpose passenger vehicle, motorcycle, or trailer, designed for carrying 10 persons or less." In turn, "multipurpose passenger vehicle" is defined as a "motor v ehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." A "bus" is defined as a "motor vehicle with motive power, except a trail er, designed for carrying more than 10 persons."

You further asked whether a limousine that seats 10 or more persons is subject to the Federal window tinting requirements. A limousine with a capacity of more than 10 persons is considered a "bus" under our regulations. There are specific requirements in Standard No. 205 that apply to buses (or bus/limousines). Under these requirements, only the windshield and the windows to the immediate left and right of the driver are considered to be requisite for driving visibility (if they are equipped with dua l outside mirrors satisfying section S6.1 (b) of Standard No. 111), and thus subject to the minimum 70 percent light transmittance requirement. The windows to the rear of the driver in a bus/limousine, including the rear side and rear windows, are not r equired to meet the light transmittance requirement. Accordingly, Standard No. 205 does not prohibit the use of tinted glazing materials for bus/limousine windows to the rear of the driver when the vehicle is equipped with dual outside mirrors larger th an those usually used on passenger cars.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at (202) 366-2992.