ID: nht87-1.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/26/87

FROM: THERESA ROONEY -- ALPINE ELECTRONICS OF AMERICA, INC.

TO: ED GLANCY -- LEGAL COUNSEL, FMVSS-101 NHTSA

TITLE: RE: FMVSS-101

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 3/07/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO THERESA ROONEY, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 101

TEXT: Dear Mr. Glancy:

I am writing to you on recommendation from Mr. Cavey of the National Highway Traffic Safety Association. He suggested that I might contact you to get written confirmation of our interpretation of the above ruling to be enacted 9/1/89.

It is my understanding that any car sound system which has been factory installed must be equipped with light intensities that have two values, a higher one for day, and lower one for night. These two light intensities do not have to be variable and any color may be used to illuminate the system.

If possible, I would like to receive written confirmation of this correct interpretation from your office for our records.

Any assistance that you may provide in this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

ID: nht87-1.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/02/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Douglas C. Fairhurst -- Townley and Update

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Douglas C. Fairhurst, Esq. Townley & Update 405 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10174

Thank you for your letter concerning how the requirements of Standard 208, Occupant Crash Protection, would apply to an arrangement Jaguar has made for having its XJS hard-top model imported into the United States altered to become a convertible. You hav e raised a number of issues in your letter, which are addressed below.

You explained that "Jaguar has entered into a contractual arrangement with a company that specializes in converting hard-top vehicles into convertible models, the essential provisions of which obligate Jaguar to cooperate with and assist the converter in the latter's effort to secure orders from Jaguar's retail dealers for converting Jaguar XJS models imported into the United States into convertibles." You further explained that "The retail dealers to whom Jaguar sells the XJS will be encouraged to have any conversion work they desire to have done on the vehicles performed by this particular converter, although of course, they remain free to have conversion work done by anyone else if they so wish. Essentially Jaguar will facilitate the arrangement wit h its converter by making shipments of vehicles designated for conversion work by dealers directly to the converter's facilities. Under the contract, the converter has the responsibility of certifying that the vehicles on which it performs this work rema in in compliance with all applicable motor vehicle safety and emissions standards . . . ."

The first issue you raised is the application of S4.1.3.1.1 of the standard to this arrangement. That section requires each vehicle manufacturer to install automatic restraints in at least 10 percent of the passenger cars it produces during the time peri od, September 1, 1986 to August 31, 1987. You stated that Jaguar intends to meet the 10 percent requirement by installing automatic safety belts in its XJS models. You asked whether, assuming all the XJS models imported into the United States have automa tic safety belts and the total number of XJS models far exceeds the number of vehicles jaguar must equip with automatic restraints to meet the 10 percent requirement, it would be a violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehic le Safety Act for Jaguar's dealers and Jaguar's authorized converter to remove the automatic safety belt in the "excess" vehicles and install manual Safety belts that comply with the requirements of Standard No. 208 and 209 in those vehicles.

It would not be a violation of section 108(a)(2)(n) for Jaguar's dealers and the converter to alter the "excess" XJS hard-top models into convertibles and reinstall manual rather than automatic safety belts into the altered vehicle. Under our certificati on regulation, a person that alters a certified vehicle must certify that the vehicle, as altered, conforms with all applicable safety standards. The agency has previously said, such as in a January 11, 1979 letter to James Brown, that when a vehicle is altered from one vehicle type to another, the alterer must certify that the vehicle conforms to the safety standards that apply to the new vehicle type, in this case a convertible. Convertibles are temporarily exempt from the automatic restraint requirem ents of Standard No. 208 during the phase-in period, and may instead have either a manual lap or lap/shoulder belt.

Please note that the agency's final decision in the ongoing rulemaking on applying the automatic restraint requirement to convertibles may affect the conversion of hard-top cars into convertibles. If the agency does not exempt convertibles permanently fr om the automatic restraint requirement, then a vehicle alterer would have to ensure that the altered cars still complied with the automatic restraint requirement. Likewise, if the agency applied a dynamic test requirement to the manual safety belts used in convertibles, a vehicle alterer would have to equip an altered vehicle with either manual safety belts meeting the dynamic test requirements or with an automatic restraint system.

Having addressed the issue of the alterer's responsibility, I would like to explain how these conversions affect Jaguar. It is Jaguar's responsibility under section 4.1.3.1.1 to produce 10 percent of its passenger cars equipped with automatic restraints during the first stage of the phase-in period. In the factual situation you have described, jaguar has entered into a contract to facilitate the conversion of some of its automatic restraint-equipped hard-top models into manual belt-equipped convertibles before the cars are first sold to a consumer. Since Jaguar has consented to the conversion, and in fact will be encouraging its dealers to use a particular "authorized" converter, jaguar cannot count a vehicle that has undergone an authorized conversion in determining whether it has produced sufficient vehicles equipped with automatic restraints. These conversions would reduce both the number of cars that would have to be equipped with automatic restraints, and the number that are equipped with such re straints. Thus, Jaguar should carefully monitor the number of conversions to ensure that there will still be a sufficient number of automatic restraint-equipped vehicles to still be a sufficient number of automatic restraint-equipped vehicles to meet S4. 1.3.1.1.

I also want to address one further issue concerning the altered vehicles. S4.1.3.1 of the standard provides a carryforward credit to manufacturers for the automatic restraint equipped vehicles they produce in excess of the required phase-in percentages. Since, as explained above, Jaguar cannot count vehicles that have undergone an authorized conversion in determining whether Jaguar has met the phase-in requirements, Jaguar also cannot use those vehicles for the purpose of the carryforward credit.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

July 2, 1986

Erika Jones, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

This follows up our discussion last Thursday regarding the post-September 1, 1986 passive restraint requirements of FMVSS 208 as they would apply to the arrangement jaguar has made in the United States for having XJS hard-top models made into convertible s. At the conclusion of our meeting, I said I would frame the specific question on which Jaguar sought an advisory opinion from NHTSA and relate to you the material facts.

The salient facts are these. Jaguar has entered into a contractual arrangement with a company that specializes in converting hard-top vehicles into convertible models, the essential provisions of which obligate Jaguar to cooperate with and assist the con verter in the latter's efforts to secure orders from Jaguar's retail dealers for converting Jaguar XJS models imported into the United States into convertibles. The XJS, as I explained, is the 12 cylinder, two-door sports model which Jaguar offers to its dealers in two versions, the XJS-HE, which is the, hard-top coupe and the XJ-SC Cabriolet, the latter having the open-top feature of a convertible, but with the "B post" intact and a removable top consisting of interlocking targa panels. The retail deal ers to whom Jaguar sells the XJS will be encouraged to have any conversion work they desire to have done on the vehicles performed by this particular converter, although, of course, they remain free to have conversion work done by anyone else if they so wish. Essentially Jaguar will facilitate the arrangement with this converter by making shipments of vehicles designated for conversion work by dealers directly to the converter's facilities. Under the contract, the converter has the responsibility of cer tifying that the vehicles on which it performs this work remain in compliance with all applicable motor vehicle safety and emissions standards, and, as I explained, there are provisions under which Jaguar will be providing the converter with financial as sistance.

The issue I raised respecting the applicability or Regulation S4.1.3.1.1 (49 C.F.R. 571.208, S4.1.1.3.2) to this project arises by virtue of the intention of Jaguar to meet its obligation to fit passive restraint systems in no less than 108 of the vehicl es Imported into the country between September 1, 1986 and September 1, 1987 by installing automatic seat belts in the XJS models I have just described. The specific question Jaguar poses to NHTSA is whether, if all of the aforementioned XJS models impor ted into the United States were equipped with automatic seat belts (this being a number far exceeding the actual number of vehicles that need be fitted with such belts in order for Jaguar to meet the 108 requirement), it would be lawful under the Safety Act for Jaguar's dealers and the converter with which Jaguar has made this contract to remove the automatic belts in the "excess" vehicles and refit these vehicles with manual seat belts that comply with the requirements of FMVSS 208 and 209 as these app ly to convertibles? This removal and refitment operation is necessary because the process of converting the vehicle entails removal of the "B post" to which part of the assembly mechanism used in the automatic seat belt is affixed. As I say, the converte r will be recertifying that each converted vehicle conforms to all applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards and Jaguar will be selling to its dealers sufficient numbers of XJS models equipped with automatic seat belts to meet its 108 obligation.

Since the converted vehicles would continue to meet the requirements of FMVSS 208 and 209, it was and remains my view that under these circumstances the removal of automatic belts installed by the factory on an "optional" basis would not "impair" or rend er inoperative any device installed to meet a safety standard and hence would not constitute a violation of 15 U.S.C. S1397(a)(2)(a).

We would appreciate confirmation of this view and any other comments you feel are appropriate.

Very truly yours,

DOUGLAS C. FAIRHURST

ID: nht87-1.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/03/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Dwight R. Koehler

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Dwight R. Koehler Product Management Parker Industries P.O. BOX 37589 Omaha, NE 68137

Dear Mr. Koehler:

This is in reply to your letter of December 9, 1986, with respect to agricultural (grain) transportation vehicles which you manufacture, known in the industry as "grain buggies." You have asked whether there are any DOT lighting requirements for these ve hicles, and if so, what are they and how might you meet them.

You have described the grain buggies as designed to be towed by agricultural tractors, with a top road speed of 25 to 3Q mph. You have also told us that "the primary use for these trailers will be 'off road' in nature," although "there are times when the se units will be used on gravel roads and occasionally, highways."

The requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment apply to various categories of "motor vehicles.' A "motor vehicle" is defined as a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufa ctured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways. The manufacturer of a vehicle determines whether his product is a "motor vehicle" and therefore a vehicle that must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards inc luding Standard No. 108. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reserves the right to challenge any determination that appears clearly erroneous. On the basis of the information you have presented us, the grain buggies will be primarily used off the public roads, and u e of the public roads will be only incidental (in our experience agricultural equipment uses public roads for such limited purposes as crossing from one field to another, and delivery of produce to processing plants). Under th ese circumstances, we would not consider the grain buggies as "motor vehicles," and no Federal requirements would apply to them. They would, however, remain subject to any appropriate requirements of the State in which they are used.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

12/9/86

Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 407th Street Southwest Washington D.C., 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

We are a manufacturer of agricultural grain transportation vehicles, also known in the industry as "Grain Buggies". We manufacture 4 different models. (ref. enclosed product literature)

Although the primary use for these trailers will be "off road" in nature, we realize there are times when these units will be used on gravel roads and occasionally, highways. They are designed to be towed by agricultural tractors, which generally have a top road speed of 25 to 30 MPH.

Since we market these units over a wide geographic area, we felt the need to incorporate a comprehensive safety lighting system, which would conform to any Department of Transportation specifications for said vehicles if there were indeed any such specif ications.

We need to know two things:

1. Are there any DOT lighting requirements for these types of vehicles?

2. If there are any requirements, what are they and how can we meet them?

I have included some general descriptions of our products for your review.

We are committed to producing quality, safe equipment for our customers. Your response to our questions will help us meet our commitments.

Sincerely

Dwight R. Koehler Product Management Parker Industries P.O. Box 37589 Omaha, NE. 68137 (402) 595-3050

ID: nht87-1.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/03/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: George Ziolo

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. George Ziolo 16182 Arena Drive Ramona, CA 92065

Dear Mr. Ziolo:

Thank you for your letter of September 19, 1986, concerning the labeling requirements of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. Those requirements provide that each safety belt is to be labeled with the year of its manufacture. You asked whether the yea r of manufacture can be shown in code. As explained below, the answer is no, the standard does not provide for showing the year of manufacture in code.

S4.1(j) of the standard requires each safety belt to be permanently and legibly labeled with the name of the manufacturer, distributor, or importer, the model of the safety belt model, and "the year of manufacture." The standard specifically requires the date of manufacture to be provided on the belt and does not provide for the use of a code to represent that date.

The purpose of the labeling requirement is to make it possible for the agency and consumers to identify easily the manufacturer of the safety belt for the purpose of noncompliance and safety-related defect investigations and notification and remedy campa igns. In addition, having the date of manufacture clearly marked on the belt assists consumers in determining whether a particular belt complies with the latest requirements of Standard No. 209 or some earlier version of those requirements. It also assis ts the agency in compliance testing of aftermarket and other safety belts because it enables the agency to determine easily which version of the standard should be applied to that safety belt. Having the year shown in a code can complicate the easy ident ification of which safety belts are covered by an investigation or campaign and make it more difficult to determine which version of the standard applies to the safety belt.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Office of the Chief Counsel US DOT/NHTSA SEP 19 1986 400 7th St SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sir:

FMVSS 209 requires that a seat belt be labeled to show:

Manufacturer's name Seat belt model Year of manufacture

My question is: Can the year of manufacture be shown in code? It seems to me that such interpretation was once given by your agency.

I thank you in advance for your kind response.

Sincerely,

George Ziolo

PS: Your response by informal endorsement hereon will suffice for my guidance.

ID: nht87-1.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/06/87

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: BINICHI DOI -- NSK REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 11/14/86, TO STEPHEN L OESCH, FROM BINICHI DOI; OCC - 1437

TEXT: Dear Mr. Doi:

Thank you for your letter of November 14, 1986, to Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning how our regulations would apply to a device intended to make it easier to reach the belt or latchplate of a safety belt system. I hope the following discussion answe rs your questions.

You enclosed a sketch with your letter that shows that the device would be attached to the vehicle by the anchorage bolt for the upper torso portion of a lap/shoulder safety belt. You explained that the device, called an "arm" or "belt reacher", is made of material which "does not interfere with the general safety/comfort of passenger and is installed semi-rotationally around the shoulder-anchor point so that it can hold the tongue in a convenient position" for the occupant to reach the belt.

There are no safety standard that directly apply to the device described in your letter. However, if the device is installed as an item of original equipment on a new vehicle, then the vehicle's safety belt system would have to continue to comply with a ll of the requirements of Standard No. 208. Thus, for example, if the device is installed on a vehicle that must comply with the comfort and convenience requirement of S7.4 of the standard, it must continue to meet those requirements, such as the the re traction requirements of S7.4.5, with the device in place. Likewise, the safety belt anchorage would have to continue to comply with all of the performance requirements of Standard No. 210.

There is one further issue associated with the device shown in your letter that I want to address. The agency supports the use of equipment that will make safety belts easier and more comfortable to use. However, it is equally important that those devi ces not introduce excessive slack in the upper torso belt and thereby reduce the effectiveness of that belt. You stated in your letter that the device is made of a material that makes it compliant so that it moves with the belt and does not

interfere with the "original protective function" of the safety belt. If you should implement the design depicted in your letter we encourage you to continue to make sure that the device will not introduce excessive slack in the belt.

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

Sincerely,

ID: nht87-1.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/06/87

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: JOHN GRIFFIN -- PRESIDENT FRAZER, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 11/17/86 FROM JOHN GRIFFIN TO TAYLOR VINSON, OCC 1443

TEXT: Dear Mr. Griffin:

This is in reply to your letter of November 17, 1986, to Taylor Vinson of this Office with respect to the status of identification and clearance lamps on emergency medical service vehicles (ambulances).

You believe that Federal requirements often present a conflict with respect to installation of these lamps at locations specified by the Standard. As an example you have cited "a light bar above the double rear doors may be placed as high as possible an d thereby give no room for identification lights." You have asked for a clarification of Federal requirements.

You are correct that Standard No. 108 does not exempt emergency-type motor vehicles from compliance; further, it contains no special provisions for them. This means that the final-stage manufacturer of such vehicles must meet the same requirements as the manufacturers of other vehicles whose overall width exceeds 80 inches, and give priority in lamp placement to fulfilling the locational requirements of Table II of Standard No. 108. The requirements for clearance and identification lamps are expressed in terms of practicability, however, and the determination of whether a certain location is "practicable" is initially that of the manufacturer who installs them. There may be State laws governing the placement of lightbars, or practical considerations that may necessitate placing identification and clearance lamps at a position other than "as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle", and in these instances the lamps may be located at a lower height than they would be were the lightbar absent. The lamps, however, cannot be omitted and the agency retains the right to review the determinations of the manufacturer.

I hope that this provides the guidance that you seek. If we may be of further help, please let us know.

Sincerely

ID: nht87-1.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/13/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: John F. Doerr

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. John F. Doerr 100 Lefferts Ave. 4D Brooklyn, NY 11225

This is in reply to your letter of December 12, 1986, to Secretary Dole on your "Safety Light Warning System." You have asked if your system "could legally be implemented" and for advice "how I may go about marketing this system."

The patent drawing of your device depicts a light bar mounted in the rear window area with a green lamp in the center flanked by amber lamps, with two red lamps at the end. This system would be acceptable neither as original equipment on passenger cars, nor as replacement equipment on passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985. As of that date, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 requires passenger cars to be manufactured with a red stop lamp in the approximate location of your green lamp. There is no Federal prohibition against offering the system in the aftermarket for retrofitting on passenger cars manufactured before September 1, 1985, but the system would be subject to the laws of each State in which it would be sold or us ed. I understand that Oregon and California allow green-amber-red deceleration warning systems when the lamps are mounted on the rear of the car, but restrictions may exist as to their mounting in a vehicle's interior.

I hope this information is useful to you.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

December 12, 1986

Mrs. Elizabeth Dole Secretary of Transportation Department of Transportation 400 7th Street NW Washington, DC 20590 Dear Mrs. Dole:

Subject: SAFETY WARNING LIGHT SYSTEM

I know you are concerned about rear end collisions, extra "eye-level stop light" confirms this.

I have a patent on this system which I believe will be more effective. This system consists of a small green light st eye-level which burns when you are gaining or maintaining speed. When you release the accelerator the green light goes off and the yello w or amber caution goes on, on each side warning the driver behind you to be alert which gives the driver a second or more to react, then, if you apply the brakes, caution lights goes off and normal stop light, lights go on, on each side at eye-level.

This information was sent to all auto makers in the United States and some abroad. They like the idea but are not interested in negotiating with me, as they don't accept ideas from anyone other than their own engineers.

I am interested to know if this could legally be implemented and if you could give me any advice or information as to how I may go about marketing this system.

Enclosed, is a brief description and my patent # 4,470,036.

Sincerely,

John F. Doerr Inventor

ID: nht87-1.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/14/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: David A. White

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. David A. White Senior Safety Engineer Grumman Olson Post Office Box 2005 Sturgis, MI 48091

Dear Mr. White:

This letter responds to your inquiry of November 17, 1986, asking this agency to approve an alternate location for the certification label of a light duty truck your company intends to manufacture for the United States Post Office. Section 567.4 of the N ational Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulations requires that a motor vehicle manufacturer affix a certification label to each vehicle it makes, and permits the manufacturer to place the label in any one of the places set out in that pr ovision. If none of those locations is practicable, S567.4 directs the manufacturer to suggest an alternate place to affix the label, and to ask our approval for that alternative.

You explain in your letter that in the circumstances you describe, the S567.4 locatons are impractical. First, you explain, the vehicle's small and irregularly shaped for a label. Second, if your company places the label on the inside of the sliding door , opening the door would hide the label. Third, you assert that the instrument panel is too small for a label.

You enclose a drawing to illustrate where your company intends to place the certification label. According to your description, the certification label will be placed on a fixed panel behind the driver, and between the cab and the load compartment. This panel is one part of a three piece assembly of which the remaining two components are a center sliding door and a second fixed panel. You state that a person can see the certification label from the driver's area without moving any vehicle item.

In directing a manufacturer to put its certification label in those places set out in S567.4, NHTSA's purpose is to make these labels easy to see and read. Based on the information you supplied, the agency determines that for this particular design, inst alling the certification label as your company proposes will facilitate seeing and reading the label, while placing the label as specified in S567.4 may not be practicable or might interfere with those activities. Therefore, on the condition that your co mpany's label complies in all other respects with S567.4, NHTSA grants your request to install the certification label on the forward side of the left hand bulkhead fixed panel.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

November 17, 1986

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

Grumman Allied Industries, Inc., LLV Division would like to request approval of an alternate location for the certification label of a light duty truck to be manufactured for the U.S. Post Office. The locations specified in 49 CFR 567.4 are not practical for the following reasons:

1. The vehicle has sliding side doors making the hinge pillar, door latch post, and door edge too small and irregularly shaped to accept a label.

2. A label placed on the inward facing side of the side door would be covered up by the vehicle structure when the door is opened.

3. The instrument panel is too small to accept a label.

Grumman Allied Industries proposes to locate the label on the forward side of the left hand bulkhead fixed panel. This bulkhead is located behind the driver between the cab and load compartment. The bulkhead is a three piece assembly consisting of a cent er sliding door and two fixed panels. The door slides to the right when opened. The certification label will be in view from the drivers area without moving any vehicle item. I am enclosing a copy of drawing 85616200 to show the location we are proposing .

David A. White Senior Safety Engineer DAW/sm 03/14/87

ID: nht87-1.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/17/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; SIGNATURE UNAVAILABLE; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Floyd D. Spence

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear Mr. Spence:

Thank you for your letter enclosing correspondence from your constituent, Mr. George Seaborn or the South Carolina Association of School Superintendents, concerning Federal regulations for school buses. Your letter has been referred to my office for repl y, since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is responsible for administering Federal programs relating to school bus safety.

In his letter to you, Mr. Seaborn expresses his concern about a Federal regulation that "excludes the use of vans capable of transporting more than 10 persons from use by schools." Mr . Seaborn explains that it would be difficult for school districts to comply with a restriction on van use since large vans are extensively used for pupil transportation. He believes that schools should be permitted to use vans since those vehicles are safe for transporting passengers other than school children.

I appreciate this opportunity to clarify our school bus regulations. As explained below, there is no Federal prohibition directed against schools or school districts which prevents them from using vans carrying 11 or more persons. Federal law does, howev er, affect the sale of buses to schools. NHTSA has the authority, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, to regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. In 1974, Congress enacted the Schoolbus and Motor Vehicle Safety Amendm ents to direct NHTSA to issue motor vehicle safety standards on specific aspects of school bus safety aid apply those standards to all "school buses." The school bus standards we issued became effective April 1, 1977, and apply to each school bus manufac tured on or after that date.

The parties subject to the Vehicle Safety Act are the manufacturers and sellers of new school buses. The Vehicle Safety Act requires each person selling a new "school bus" to ensure that the bus complies with our school bus safety standards. Under Federa l law, a van designed for 11 or more persons (driver included) is a "bus," and is a "school bus" if intended for transporting students to aid from school or related events.

A person way sell a new bus (including a van designed to carry 11 or more persons) to a school or school district provided that the vehicle meets our motor vehicle safety standards for school buses.

Because our regulations apply only to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, we do not prohibit school districts from using their large vans to transport school children even when the vehicles do not meet Federal school bus safety standards. Mat ters relating to motor vehicle use are determined by state law. However, in the event a South Carolina school district decides to buy a new school bus, we would like the district to keep in mind that the seller would be obligated under the Vehicle Safety not to sell complying school buses. The seller should know that he or she risks substantial penalties if a noncomplying bus is sold as a school bus.

Since Mr. Seaborn is interested in transporting students in vans, I would like to clarify a few additional matters concerning our school bus regulations. In his letter to you, your constituent expresses a belief that large vans (i.e., buses) should be sa fe for school children since they are safe for other passengers. The legislative history of the Schoolbus Amendments of 1974 indicate that Congress believed that special measures should be taken to protect school children who use school bus transportatio n. Fifteen-passenger vans (i.e., buses) meeting our school bus safety standards provide more safety features than other buses. School buses must meet stringent performance requirements, including those for interior protection, fuel systems, emergency exi ts, windows and windshields and seating systems.

New 15-passenger vans, conforming to our school bus standards, may be sold to school districts to transport their pupils to school related events. School districts may also purchase 9-passenger vans for school transportation, because such vans are consid ered "multipurpose passenger vehicles" (MPV's) and not "buses" or "school buses" under Federal law. We do not prohibit the sale of MPV's to carry school children nor do we require then to comply with Federal school bus safety standards. Instead, they mus t meet the performance requirements set by the safety standards for MPV's, which also provide high levels of passenger safety.

I hope this information is helpful. We have provided similar letters to Representatives Robin Tallon and Butler Derrick who contacted us on behalf of Mr. Seaborn. Please let us know if we can be of further assistance to you and your constituents.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

The Honorable Floyd Spence House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Spence:

Thank you for your letter forwarding correspondence from your constituent, Mr.

George W. Seaborn.

I have transmitted your inquiry to the appropriate Departmental officials who are familiar with this matter and they will respond to you directly.

I appreciate your contacting me and hope you will not hesitate to call if I can be of any further assistance.

Sincerely,

Edward J. Babbitt Director, Office of Congressional Affairs

February 2, 1987 Mr. Ed Babbitt

Director/Congressional Affairs Department of Transportation Room 10406 400 7th Street. S.W. Washington. D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Babbitt:

Enclosed is the copy of a constituent letter I recently received. I would appreciate it if you could review this matter and let me know its current status. Thank you for your time.

With kindest regards. I am

Sincerely,

FLOYD D. SPENCE Member of Congress

FDS/bb Enclosure

Congressman Floyd Spence Room 2466 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Dear Congressman Spence:

You will see from the enclosed material that in 1977, the Department of National Highway Safety adopted a standard which excludes the use of vans capable of transporting more than ten persons from use by schools. None of the administrators in South Carol ina were aware of this legislation until recently. I am sure that you know that there are hundreds of these vans being operated by South Carolina school districts and many thousands more by school districts across our land. We have three in our school di strict which belong to the state and are furnished to us for the purpose of transporting children to our child development program. We also have our own vans which are used to transport small groups such as golf team, cheerleaders, etc.

All of these vans were legally purchased on the open market in South Carolina. It seems to me that if these vehicles are unsafe to transport youngsters then they are unsafe to transport any citizens in our nation. On the other hand, if they are considere d safe to transport citizens in this country who are not school students, they should be safe to transport school students. This regulation implies that certain classes of our citizens are entitled to higher safety standards than other classes.

I have been asked by my colleagues throughout the state to urge your immediate attention to this matter as all it is doing at the present time is creating additional liability for our schools systems. There is no way I can tell the parents for instance i n our child development program that we can no longer transport their children to their child development classes. I respectfully await your prompt action concerning this matter.

Sincerely. George W. Seaborn, President South Carolina Association of School Superintendents

ID: nht87-1.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/08/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: John B. Walsh -- Corporate Attorney, Manager, Legal Affairs Dept., U.S. Suzuki Motor Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 11/21/84 letter from Frank Berndt to U.S. Suzuki Motor Corp. (Std. 108)

TEXT:

John B. Walsh, Esq. Corporate Attorney Manager, Legal Affairs Dept. U.S. Suzuki Motor Corp. P.O. Box 1100 Brea, CA 92621

This is in reply to your letter of August 15, 1986, to Mr. Vinson of this office, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You cite Table IV's requirement that the minimum edge to edge distance from a motorcycle's front turn signal to the headlamp be a minimum of inches. Referring to a similar requirement for rear lamp spacing and previous agency interpretations stating that this applies only when there are single rear lamps mounted on the vertical centerline, but not when dual stop and tail lamps are mounted on either side of the centerline, you have asked for an interpretation that an exception from the minimum turn signa l spacing requirement is also permissible when a motorcycle has two headlamps rather than one.

We are unable to provide the requested interpretation because of SAE J588e, September 1970. SAE J588e is incorporated by Standard No. 108 and applies to turn signal lamps in use on passenger cars, motorcycles, and all other motor vehicles. Paragraph 4.2 of SAE J588e establishes the requirement that "the optical axis (filament center) of the front turn signal shall be at least 4 in. from the inside diameter of the retaining ring of the headlamp unit providing the lower beam." This requirement applies reg ardless of the number or location of motor vehicle headlamps. SAE J588e did not prevent the issuance of the earlier interpretations regarding rear lamp spacing since that SAE standard does not establish requirements for minimum separation between turn si gnals and rear lamps.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Council

15 August 1986

Mr. Taylor Vinson Room 5219 Office of Chief Counsel. NOA-30 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 700 Seventh Street. SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Vinson:

Subject: Request for Interpretation - FMVSS 108

On November 21, 1984, the Chief Counsel confirmed a 1972 agency interpretation of FMVSS 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (copy of 1972 interpretation, 1984 request, and your office's 1984 response enclosed). The 1972 interpretatio n was for a motorcycle rear lighting configuration. This letter is to request confirmation that the July 1972 interpretation of FMVSS 108 could apply to a motorcycle front lighting configuration as well as the addressed rear lighting configuration.

Table IV of FMVSS 108 required that motorcycle front turn signals be separated by 16 inches or more (centerline to centerline). and that minimum edge to edge distance from the turn signal to the headlamp be 4 inches or more.

We are exploring the possibility of using a front lighting configuration essentially comparable to current practice in passenger car front lighting configurations. This proposed front lighting configuration would consist of a single lamp unit located nea r the outer edge of each side of the front of the motorcycle. The inboard part of the lamp unit would be the headlamp and the outboard part of the lamp unit would be an amber turn signal lamp. Turn signal lamp separation would be equal to or greater than the 16 inch minimum required (see sketch attached).

We would like you to confirm, as in the 1972 and 1984 interpretations, that the minimum edge to edge separation distance of 4 inches between turn signals and headlamp applies when single headlamps are installed on the vertical centerline, but not when du el headlamps are installed on either side of the centerline.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Sincerely,

U.S. SUZUKI MOTOR CORP.

(See 11/21/84 correspondence between Frank Berndt and Suzuki)