ID: 16425-2.ogm

Mr. Todd W. Loescher
Sales/Marketing Manager
Cliff Keyes Mfg. & Supply Co.
2015 West First
Newton, KS 67114

Dear Mr. Loescher:

This responds to your letter regarding aisle facing or side facing seats in commercial buses and multipurpose vehicles. Specifically, you ask whether there is a code of federal regulations for such seats, whether a seating manufacturer can provide attachment points on a seat or seat pedestal for seat belts intended for use on such vehicles and whether a seating manufacturer can attach seat belts on a seat or a seat pedestal for intended for use on such vehicles. In the latter two instances, you ask what code of federal regulations, if any, applies.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under Title 49, Chapter 301 of the U.S. Code to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Chapter 301 prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) are published as separate subsections within section 571 of volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish five safety standards that may be relevant to your questions. The first is Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, which sets forth strength requirements for all "occupant seats". The second is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, which sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in vehicles. The third is Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, which sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. The fourth is Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, which establishes strength and location requirements for seat belt anchorages. The final relevant safety standard is Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. This standard specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used in the occupant compartment of motor vehicles.

Your first question relates to regulations applicable to side facing seats in buses and multipurpose vehicles. Standard No. 207, Seating systems, establishes performance requirements for "occupant seats" in passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses. In particular, S4.1 requires vehicles to have an occupant seat for the driver, S4.2 specifies general performance requirements relating to strength, S4.3 specifies requirements for restraining devices for hinged or folding seats or seat backs, and S4.4 specifies labeling requirements for seats not designated for occupancy while the vehicle is in motion. I note, however, that the seats you ask about are excluded from some, but not all, of the standard's requirements. The requirements of S4.2 do not apply to side-facing seats and the requirements of S4.2 and S4.3 do not apply to passenger seats in buses.

Your second and third questions concern whether a seat manufacturer can provide attachment points for seat belts, and seat belts, on seats and seat pedestals intended for use on side facing seats in buses and multipurpose vehicles and, if so, which regulations apply.

A seat manufacturer may provide seat belt attachment points on seats or seat pedestals and attach seat belts to those attachment points. I note that it would be the vehicle manufacturer, rather than the seat manufacturer, that would be required to certify the vehicle (with the seat installed) to the applicable safety standards.

Standard No. 208 establishes requirements for safety belts in cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses. The type of belt required depends on the class of vehicle and location of the seating position within the vehicle. Buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 10,000 pounds are not required to have safety belts at any location other than the driver's seat.

Standard No. 210 requires the installation of anchorages at any location where a safety belt is required by Standard No. 208.

Standard No. 210 excludes side-facing seats from its strength requirements specified in S4.2, but all other requirements of the standard apply to side-facing seats. We strongly recommend that belt anchorages for side-facing seats be of at least equivalent strength to anchorages for forward and rearward facing seats, since the strength specifications are only minimum performance requirements.

In addition to meeting the requirements of Standard No. 209, any fabric or trim provided with the seat belts themselves would have to meet the requirements of Standard No. 302, Flammability of interior materials.

I hope that this is responsive to your inquiry. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Otto Matheke at (202) 366-5263.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:208
d.3/13/98

ID: 16430.ztv

Mr. Lawrence J. Fetter
Athey Products Corporation
1839 South Main
Wake Forest, NC 27587

Dear Mr. Fetter:

This is in reply to your fax of November 10, 1997, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You have asked how your Mobile Street Sweeper with speed capability of 25 mph or less is treated under both our current regulations and interpretations, and under the Federal motor vehicle safety standard that has been proposed for low-speed vehicles.

I am sorry that we have taken so long to reply. This delay was occasioned in part by your description of the street sweeper as one with three wheels, and in part by our desire to answer your question in terms of the final rule on low-speed vehicles, rather than on the basis of the proposal. The Administrator issued the final rule on June 9, 1998, and we are able to respond. We understand from your telephone conversation with Taylor Vinson of this Office in April that your sweeper in fact has four wheels, with two small ones twelve inches apart. We understand, also, that the maximum speed of the Sweeper is between 20 and 25 miles per hour.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regulates "motor vehicles." A "motor vehicle" is defined in part as one which is "manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways." Thus, a street sweeper is a "motor vehicle" under this definition because it is manufactured for the purpose of cleaning city streets and its entire functional life is spent on the public streets.

Having determined that a street sweeper is a "motor vehicle," the next question to be answered is the manner in which NHTSA has classified it for purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. All three-wheeled vehicles, regardless of their nature, are "motorcycles" as that term is defined under 49 CFR 571.3(b). A "truck" is defined as a "motor vehicle . . . designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment." We consider the brushes to be "special purpose equipment." This means that your Mobile Street Sweeper with a speed capability of 20 to 25 miles per hour has been considered a "truck" for Federal motor vehicle safety regulatory purposes before and during the rulemaking on low-speed vehicles.

The proposal has been finalized as Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 500 Low-speed vehicles. Under the final rule, a low-speed vehicle is defined as a "4-wheeled motor vehicle, other than a truck," whose maximum speed is between 20 and 25 miles per hour. This represents the agency's decision to continue to regulate non-passenger carrying vehicles as trucks, even if their maximum speed capability is low. This means that the final rule makes no change in the previous classification of your Mobile Street Sweeper as a truck.

If you have further questions you may refer them to Taylor Vinson (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:571
d.6/24/98

ID: 16437-1.pja

Mr. James Jacobsen
Reinke Manufacturing Company, Inc.
P.O. Box 566
Dreshler, NE 68340

Dear Mr. Jacobsen:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of whether a proposed trailer configuration would be excluded from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) rear impact protection (underride guard) regulations. Your proposed design is a flatbed trailer with a piece of four inch square steel tubing welded to the bottom of the chassis I-beam flanges. Without the tubing, the bottom of the flange would be 25 inches above ground level. With the flange, the bottom of the flange would be 21 inches off the ground. You state that the piece of tubing would meet the dimensional requirements of the rule. You ask if NHTSA would consider the tube to be a part of the chassis and, if so, whether the vehicle would be excluded from our regulations as a low chassis vehicle. As explained below, this proposed trailer design would not be excluded as a low chassis vehicle, and a compliant underride guard would need to be provided.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 224, Rear impact protection, requires most trailers and semitrailers weighing over 10,000 pounds to be fitted at the rear with a rear impact (underride) guard meeting the requirements of Standard No. 223, Rear impact guards (49 CFR 571.223 and 571.224, published on January 24, 1996 at 61 FR 2004). However, certain kinds of vehicles are excluded. The only excluded category that is relevant for the purposes of this letter is low chassis vehicles.

Low chassis vehicles are defined in S4 of Standard No. 224 as "a trailer or semitrailer having a chassis that extends behind the rearmost point of the rearmost tires and a lower rear surface that meets the configuration requirements of S5.1.1 through 5.1.3 of this section." In other words, the chassis itself must satisfy the configuration requirements applicable to a guard when the vehicle is outfitted for transit. The only part of your vehicle that may meet these configuration requirements is the piece of steel tubing welded to the bottom of the frame rail flanges, so the question becomes whether the tubing is considered to be part of the "chassis" of the vehicle. Chassis is defined in S4 as "the load supporting frame structure of a motor vehicle." There are two elements to this definition that must be satisfied: "load supporting" and "frame structure."

To be considered "load supporting," the frame structure has to support load when the trailer is performing its function. Generally, this means that the structure would have to contribute to supporting the cargo load when the trailer is in transit.

To be considered part of the frame structure, a structural member must be either an integral part of the overall frame structure, or be connected with other frame structural members in a way that is necessary to the structural integrity of the trailer. One factor the agency considers in deciding whether a structural member is part of the frame is its size and strength. Frame structural components often are the major structures defining the shape of the trailer. Although frame structure is not limited to the largest frame components (i.e., the frame rails for most trailers), generally frame components are substantial and have strength similar to other frame components. Moveable components may "lock" into the frame structure sufficiently that they are integral with other frame members-in this situation NHTSA may consider the combined components to be one frame unit. However, the agency also looks at the purpose and function of the structural member in supporting the trailer and its load.

Applying these principles to your welded-on piece of steel tubing, the agency concludes that it is not part of the chassis. The tubing does not meet the "load supporting" aspect of the chassis definition because it does not contribute to supporting cargo load. The tubing is also not part of the frame structure of the trailer. It does not define the outline, but projects down from beneath the frame structure. It is not locked into the structure strongly enough to be considered as one unit with a frame structural component. In consideration of these factors, we conclude that the approach plate is not part of the frame structure. NHTSA considers the tubing to be an attachment. Therefore, the proposed trailer design would not be considered a low chassis vehicle, and it would have to have a compliant underride guard attached.

We note, however, that the tubing already appears to fulfill the configurational requirements of a horizontal member of an underride guard. You would only need to assure that it meets the strength and energy absorption requirements in Standard No. 223 to be able to certify this vehicle design to our underride guard requirements.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:224

ID: 16441.ztv

Mr. Norbert Westerhujis
Aleidastraat 1
7555 TH Hengelo Ov
The Netherlands

Dear Mr. Westerhuis:

This is in reply to your fax to Taylor Vinson of this Office which we received on November 13, 1997. You have asked "Is it allowed to have fog lighting (front and/or rear) on your car in the United States."

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment does not prescribe specifications for fog lamps, either as mandatory or optional equipment on new motor vehicles. This means that the individual states have the authority to regulate the performance of fog lamps, and even to forbid them. I am sorry that we cannot advise you on the laws of the individual states. You will have to contact the Department of Motor Vehicles in each state for an answer.

Standard No. 108 prohibits supplementary original equipment such as fog lamps if they impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. We would regard as an impairment, for example, a fog lamp whose intensity masked the operation of a turn signal or stop lamp. Additionally, front fog lamps must be located either greater than 100 mm from a front turn signal lamp, or the turn signal must be up to 2.5 times more intense than otherwise required, depending on its distance from the fog lamp. See paragraph 5.1.5.4 and Table 2 of SAE Standard J588 NOV84 Turn Signal Lamps for use on Motor Vehicles Less than 2032 MM in Overall Width,incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108.

I hope that this information is helpful.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.12/8/97

ID: 16443.ztv

Mr. Adam Englund
VeloCity
3373 Calle del Sur
Carlsbad, CA 92009-8616

Dear Mr. Englund:

This is in reply to your letter of November 13, 1997. I am sorry that we did not receive your original letter of October 14. Nor did we receive the product brochure that the letter mentions is enclosed. However, we are able to answer your request for an interpretation on the basis of information in your letter.

Your client, the Electric Transportation Company ("ETC"), manufactures an electric power pack, the ETC Express, that is designed for installation on bicycles. You state that the bike must be pedaled to activate the motor and that "the pedal assist system will not operate on its own, in the absence of muscular effort . . . ." You have asked for an interpretation that the ETC Express is not a "motor vehicle" or "motor vehicle equipment" for purposes of the regulations of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

I am pleased to confirm your request. Because of your background in powered bicycles you are well aware that we consider a bicycle with a motor to be a "motor vehicle" if the vehicle is able to travel on level ground propelled solely by the motor, without any muscular input by the operator, for the duration of the battery charge. On the other hand, if the motor only assists the operator, and cannot propel the bicycle without the muscular input of the operator, a bicycle with this type of power assist motor is not considered a "motor vehicle" subject to our jurisdiction. It is a "bicycle," subject to the regulations of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

On the basis of your statement that "the pedal assist system will not operate on its own, in the absence of muscular effort," a bicycle equipped with the ETC Express would not be a "motorvehicle" as we have interpreted the term with respect to motorized bicycles. This means that the ETC Express would not be considered "motor vehicle equipment" either.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:VSA
d.12/97

ID: 16451.drn

Lance Tunick, Esq.
Vehicle Services Consulting, Inc.
P. O. Box 1015
Golden, CO 80402-1015

Dear Mr. Tunick:

This responds to your request for an interpretation as to whether Item 4A Glazing, "Rigid Plastic for Use in Side Windows," specified in Standard No. 205, Glazing materials, is permitted in the rear window that is behind a retractable roll bar in a convertible passenger car. As explained below, the answer is no.

Your letter asks for confirmation that a motor vehicle depicted in three enclosed photographs is a convertible, and asks whether Item 4A Glazing may be used in the rear and side windows of the convertible "if they meet the criteria of S5.1.2.11(a)(2)." The photographs depict a two door vehicle with two seats, space behind the seats, and a raked windshield. One photograph depicts a vehicle with no side glazing or roof. A second photograph shows a closer view of the top half of the vehicle, with a roll bar and an apparently retractable rear window. The rear window curves around the vehicle so that part of it can be seen from the side. The third photograph shows the entire vehicle with the roll bar and the rear window in place.

In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that by "side windows," your letter did not mean the glazing that rolls up and retracts within the driver and passenger side doors, but refers to the part of the rear window that is visible from the side. You explained that the vehicle includes a retractable rear window, retractable roll bar, and has a removable center or roof piece that can be stored in the trunk. You explained that the glazing behind the roll bar at the rear of the vehicle is of one piece. You also stated to Ms. Nakama that the vehicle has four designated seating positions.

We would agree that the vehicle is a convertible. NHTSA interpretations have consistently defined "convertible" as a vehicle whose "A" pillar or windshield peripheral support is not joined with the "B" pillar (or rear roof support rearward of the "B" pillar position) by a fixed, rigid structural member. The vehicle you ask about meets this definition.

The locations in a vehicle where Item 4A Glazing may be used are specified in S5.1.2.11, Test Procedures for Item 4A - Rigid Plastic for Use in Side Windows Rearward of the "C" Pillar. S5.1.2.11 was established in Standard No. 205 in a final rule published on August 12,

1996 (61 FR 41739, effective September 11, 1996). The preamble to the final rule explained that NHTSA decided to adopt an approach that, unlike the proposal, does not refer to any vehicle type. Instead, the approach is based on the relative location of a window in any vehicle and the occupant seats in that vehicle.

Item 4A Glazing is permitted in the following specific vehicle locations (see S5.1.2.11(a)):

(1) All areas in which Item 4 safety glazing may be used. (See S5.1.2.11(a)(1).)

(2) Any side window that meets the criteria in S5.1.2.11(a)(2)(I) and (ii). (See S5.1.2.11(a)(2).)

In reviewing "[A]ll areas in which Item 4 safety glazing may be used," we note that in ANSI Z-26.1a-1980, Item 4 Glazing is permitted in "(h) The rear windows of convertible passenger car tops." Since the vehicle depicted in your photographs is a convertible, the glazing does not meet subparagraph (h) because the glazing in the vehicle is separate from (not of the same piece as) the convertible top, and therefore is not a rear window of a convertible passenger car top.

Item 4A Glazing is also permitted in "[a]ny side window that meets the criteria in S5.1.2.11(a)(2)(I) and (ii)." Based on our observation of the photographs of the retractable glazing behind the roll bar, we would consider the glazing to be a "rear window" only, not a "side window." This is because the retractable glazing is positioned behind the roll bar in the side view, such that the view through it is obstructed by the roll bar. Since the retractable glazing is not considered to be a side window, it is not a location "that meets the criteria in S5.1.2.11(a)(2)(I) and (ii)." Since the location where you wish to place Item 4A Glazing meets neither S5.1.2.11(a)(1) nor (2), Item 4A Glazing may not be placed in the rear window.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any specific questions about this letter, please contact Dorothy Nakama. If you have other questions about Standard No. 205, please contact Paul Atelsek. Both Ms. Nakama and Mr. Atelsek may be reached at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:205
d.3/31/98

ID: 16452.wkm

Mr. Barry Livett
Assistant Director
Corporate Finance Department
Bank of China International (UK) Limited
One Canada Square
London E14 5AA

Dear Mr. Livett:

Please excuse the delay in responding to your letter to Mr. Arthur H. Neill, Jr. formerly of this Department, requesting a list of Chinese tire companies that have been granted certification by the U.S. Department of Transportation. Please be advised that Mr. Neill has retired.

You state that you work for the merchant banking arm of the Bank of China and are preparing information on the Chinese tire industry. In connection with this, you request from us a list of Chinese tire companies and/or names of Chinese tire brands that have been granted any form of U.S. certification.

The law of this country establishes a self-certification system in which manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, which includes tires, themselves certify that their products meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Thus, this agency does not certify, approve, disapprove, endorse, or assure compliance of any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment prior to its being introduced for sale in the retail market. Rather, this agency enforces compliance with the standards after the fact; that is, we purchase vehicles and equipment that are available to consumers in the retail market and test them for compliance. If they are found to comply, nothing further is done. If they are found not to comply, the manufacturer is responsible for correcting the problem(s), by repair or otherwise, at no expense to the customers.

We do, however, issue identification codes to each plant of each manufacturer that produces tires for sale in the United States. The purpose of such codes is that in the event of a tire recall, the codes will enable this agency to readily identify the plant in which the affected tires were produced. Therefore, enclosed in accordance with your request is a list of tire companies in China to which we have issued tire codes as of January 22, 1998.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at 011-202-366-2992, or by fax at 011-202-366-3820.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:574
d.2/12/98

ID: 16507.drn

Carlton R. Csiki, Division Chief
Commercial Vehicle Safety Division
Department of Motor Vehicles
State of Connecticut
60 State Street
Wethersfield, CT 06161

Dear Mr. Csiki:

This responds to your November 10, 1997, request that we clarify our pupil transportation policies concerning which vehicles we believe should be used to carry students to school-related events. I appreciate this opportunity to address your concerns.

Your letter follows up on an October 15, 1997, letter that Administrator Ricardo Martinez, M.D. sent to pupil transportation officials of each state which recommended, among other things, that certified school buses should be used to transport children to and from school and school-related events. You state that Connecticut does not prohibit the use of buses other than school buses (hereinafter referred to as "non-school buses") to transport students to and from school-related events. You believe that it may not be feasible to transport students on long field trips in a school bus, and ask whether the recommendation is contrary to provisions in Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety (Guideline 17), which appear to make allowance for the use of "school-chartered buses" (which are non-school buses) for special events.

Our position is that children are safest when in school buses and thus these vehicle should be used rather than conventional buses, certainly when transporting children on a regular basis to and from school-related events. It should be noted that Federal law prohibits persons from selling new non-school buses if the vehicles will be used significantly for school-related events. However, non-school buses may be occasionally rented for special school-related events, because an occasional rental does not constitute "significant use" as a school bus.

Guideline 17 reflects the real world possibility that a non-school bus might have to be rented from time to time for a special event. Under the guideline, these buses, which the guideline refers to as "school-chartered buses," would be subject to the guideline's recommendations for the safe operation of school vehicles but not to the recommendations for equipping school buses with mirrors, lamps and stop arms and identifying them with signs and yellow paint. This distinction was to promote safety on trips to special events without imposing unreasonable burdens on school administrators.

The guideline's provisions for non-school buses only address the occasional, short-term rental of the vehicles. As for buses that are regularly used for school-related events, there is no question that school buses are among the safest vehicles on the road today and should be used instead of non-school buses to transport school children. We ask you and your colleagues to further consider choosing school buses over non-school buses for transporting students to these school-related events.

If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
d.1/8/98
ref:VSA#571.3

ID: 1651y

Mr. Wendell D. Kegg
Tire/Wheel Consultants
12190 Hoover Avenue, OH 44685

Dear Mr. Kegg:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims. You were uncertain about section S4.3.1's requirements related to the inflation pressure for spare tires specified on vehicle placards. You asked whether a vehicle manufacturer can specify a higher inflation pressure for a spare tire than the maximum inflation pressure molded on the tire's sidewall.

As you know, FMVSS 110 sets forth requirements related to vehicle placards in passenger cars. Section S4.3 requires that the placard be "permanently affixed to the glove compartment door or an equally accessible location" and display the vehicle capacity weight; the designated seating capacity; the vehicle manufacturer's recommended cold tire inflation pressure for maximum loaded weight and, subject to the limitations of S4.3.1, for any other manufacturer-specified vehicle loading condition; and the vehicle manufacturer's recommended tire size designation. FMVSS 110 does not have any provision requiring the inclusion of information on the placard related to spare tires or air pressure related to spare tires. Accordingly, a passenger car manufacturer may, but is not required to, specify information related to spare tires on the placard.

In response to your question whether a passenger car manufacturer can specify a higher inflation pressure for a spare tire than the maximum inflation pressure molded on the spare tire's sidewall, section S4.3.1 of FMVSS 110 states that the vehicle placard must not specify an "inflation pressure other than the maximum permissible inflation pressure" required to be molded on the tire itself by section S4.3 of FMVSS 109, New Pneumatic Tires, unless the alternative inflation pressure satisfies the three conditions set forth in S4.3.1. The first condition requires that the alternative inflation pressure be less than the maximum permissible inflation pressure. The second condition requires that the vehicle loading condition be specified for the alternative reduced pressure. The third condition requires that the tire load rating be specified by an individual manufacturer for the tire size at that inflation pressure that is not less than the vehicle load on the tire for that vehicle loading condition. Accordingly, a vehicle manufacturer could not specify on its placard an inflation pressure that exceeds the maximum permissible inflation pressure.

I am enclosing a December 13, 1984 letter to Mr. Alberto Negro of Fiat, which explains the agency's position concerning a manufacturer's specification on the placard of an inflation pressure that exceeds the maximum inflation pressure molded on the tire. As that letter indicates, a manufacturer would have to meet each of the conditions specified in section S4.3.1, including that the alternative inflation pressure must be less than the maximum permissible inflation pressure. Because spare tires are subject to these requirements like any other pneumatic tire, a vehicle manufacturer could not specify a higher inflation pressure for a spare tire than the maximum inflation pressure molded on that tire.

If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

/ref:109#110 d:l/l8/89

ID: 16528.drn

The Honorable Phil English
U.S. House of Representatives
310 French Street, Suite 107
Erie, PA 16507

Dear Congressman English:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Gary New of New Car Rental in Erie, who asks about this agency's school bus regulations. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply.

Mr. New wishes to know whether he can rent 15-passenger vans to schools to transport students to sports events. As explained below, Federal law permits the lease of a van on a one-time or very occasional basis. However, because States have the authority to regulate the use of vehicles, Mr. New should contact Pennsylvania officials to see if State law would permit the lease of the vans.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles. Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112 requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable standards. Accordingly, persons selling or leasing a new "school bus" must sell or lease a vehicle that meets the safety standards applicable to school buses. Our statute defines a "school bus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying 11 or more persons and which is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events. 49 U.S.C. 30125. Therefore, a 15-passenger van that is likely to be used significantly to transport students is a "school bus."

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

However, a one-time or very occasional rental would be permitted. Because such use would not constitute "significant use" as a school vehicle, the van would not be a "school bus" and thus may be leased to the school for the special event.

The requirement to sell or lease complying school buses applies only to new vehicles. If a school wishes to buy a used 15-passenger van or enter into a long-term lease, NHTSA would not require the seller or lessor to sell or lease a school bus. However, NHTSA believes that school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country, and therefore strongly recommends that all buses that are used to transport school children be certified as meeting NHTSA's school bus safety standards. Further, using 15-passenger vans that do not meet the school bus standards to transport students could result in increased liability in the event of a crash. Since such liability would be determined by State law, Mr. New may wish to consult with his attorney and insurance carrier for advice on this issue.

I hope this information will assist you in responding to your constituent's concerns. I have enclosed a question-and-answer sheet on "Dealer's Questions about Federal School Bus Safety Requirements." If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:VSA#571.3
d.12/18/97