ID: nht88-1.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/19/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Charles Wilson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 6/19/89 letter from Stephen P. Wood to Rod Willaredt (A33; Std. 108); 5/17/89 letter from Rod Willaredt to Taylor Vinson: 4/18/88 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Wayne Apple (Std. 108); 7/11/88 letter from Erika Z. Jones to William J. Stephenson (Std. 108)

TEXT: The Honorable Charles Wilson House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Wilson:

This is in response to your letter of December 9, 1987, to Ms. Brenda Brown, Office of Congressional Affairs, Department of Transportation, which has been forwarded to this Office for reply. Unfortunately/ the Department has no record of receiving your p revious letter of August 19, 1987.

You have written on behalf of your constituent Mr. W. P. Brandon of Palestine who has designed a Wide Right Turn signal for installation on the rear of trailers. The device consists of the words Wide Right Turn and an arrow, in black on a caution yellow background. The device is attached to the lower right rear of a trailer, and flashes when the turn indicator is positioned for a right turn. Mr. Brandon asks three questions with respect to his device, which I shall answer shortly.

Preliminarily let me note that the applicable Federal law and regulation are, respectively, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. St andard No. 108 permits a supplementary lighting device such as Mr. Brandon's as original trailer equipment if it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that Standard No. 108 requires, such as the standard turn signal system. The Vehi cle Safety Act permits it as aftermarket trailer equipment if its installation by a person other than the trailer owner does not render inoperative, wholly or in part, equipment installed on the trailer pursuant to Standard No. 108 or any other safety st andard.

With these general remarks in mind, we reach the three questions that Mr. Brandon asked.

"1. Is there any rule regarding the placement of a flashing 'Wide Right Turn' signal on the lower right rear of a trailer?" The answer is no, as long as there is no impairment of the effectiveness of the other rear lamps (i.e., the standard turn signal must continue to operate when the lever is in the position indicating a right turn, but the wide turn signal should not opera te when the hazard warning signals (which operate through the turn signal lamps) are on).

"2. Can the signal be black letters on a safety yellow background or should it be another color"?

The agency does not prescribe the color of supplementary lighting devices, and color is subject only to the "impairment" restriction. Required lighting equipment on the rear of trailers may be white (back up lamps), amber (turn signals), or red (the alte rnative color for turn signals, and the required color for taillamps and stop lamps). I am unsure what "safety yellow" is, but it would not appear to impair the effectiveness of the red, amber, or white lamps on the trailer's rear.

"3. Are there any restrictions on manufacturing of the signal insofar as materials or construction are concerned?"

There are no Federal restrictions or requirements. However, supplementary lighting devices such as Mr. Brandon's are subject to regulation in all their aspects by the States in which they will be sold and used. We are not conversant with State regulation s on this subject, and suggest that, for further advice, Mr. Brandon contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 1201 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.

We appreciate Mr. Brandon's interest in safety, and your writing us with respect to his "Wide Turn Signal" device.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

WEB MARKETING COMPANY P. 0. Box 1609 Palestine, TX 75801

August 17, 1987

Mr. Larry Murphy 2265 H. O. B. Washington, D. C. 20515

Dear Mr. Murphy,

As per our telephone conversation today, the following is a discription of the "Wide Right Turn" signal I have designed. The signal is approximately 10 inches by 12 inches by 1 inch thick. The words and arrow are in black on a caution yellow background. The signal will be attached by bolts or welding to the lower right hand corner of the trailer. The signal will flash on and off when the driver positions his turn indicator for a right turn. (See attached photograph).

What I need to know from the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration following: 1. Is there any rule regarding the placement of a flashing "Wide Right Turn" signal on the lower right rear of a trailer.

2. Can the signal be black letters on a safety yellow back-ground or should it be in another color.

3. Are there any restrictions on manufacturing of the signal insofar as materials or construction are concerned.

As I stated to you on the phone I am working with Patent Attorneys in Houston regarding Patent Application of this signal devise.

Mr. Murphy, your assistance with the D.O.T. in getting me some answers will be greatly appreciated.

Yours very truly,

W. P. Brandon WEB MARKETING COMPANY (214)538-2512

WPB/eb

Ms. Brenda Brown Office- Congressional Affairs Room 1046 (I-25) Department of Transportation 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Brown:

We wrote to the Department on August 19, 1987, on behalf of Mr. W.P. Brandon of Palestine, Texas, regarding a "Wide Right Turn" signal for trailer trucks, which he had designed.

I would appreciate it if you will provide us with the status of action on this matter. We are enclosing copies of the prior correspondence for ease of reference.

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Charles Wilson

CW:lm

August 19, 1987

Ms. Brenda Brown Office- Congressional Affairs Room 1046 (I-25) Department of Transportation 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Brown:

Enclosed is a letter from Mr. W.P. Brandon of Palestine, Texas, regarding a "Wide Right Turn" signal for trailer trucks which he has designed.

As you may note, Mr. Brandon has certain questions that he has asked our assistance in getting answers. Any information which you may provide to answer these questions would be appreciated. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Charles Wilson

CW:lm

ID: nht88-1.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/19/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: EDWIN SPEAS, JR. -- SPECIAL DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 7-7-87, FROM LACY H. THORNBURG & EDWIN M. SPEAS, TO ERIKA Z. JONES-NHTSA

TEXT: I am responding to your letter of July 7, 1987, where you ask for some assistance with an issue facing your State's public school systems. You stated that some school systems have purchased vans that do not meet Federal school bus specifications. The s chool systems use these noncomplying vans primarily to transport school teachers and administrators, but the vans sometimes are used to transport students to extracurricular activities.

You ask two questions. The first question is whether Federal law prohibits a school system from using a van to transport students to extracurricular activities if the van does not meet Federal school bus standards. The second question is whether the Se cretary of Transportation has adopted a regulation defining the term "significantly" as that term appears in 15 U.S.C. @ 1391(14).

The 1974 amendments to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Vehicle Safety Act or VSA) apply to any person manufacturing or selling a new "school bus." NHTSA defines "school bus" as a motor vehicle designed for carrying 11 or more persons, including a driver, and sold or introduced into interstate commerce for transporting students to and from school or school-related events. The VSA does not regulate the manner in which a person, including a school district, uses a vehicle it purchases. Therefore, the answer to your first question is that Federal law does not prohibit a school district from transporting students in a noncomplying vehicle.

On the other hand, the seller of these vans may have sold them in violation of Federal law if the seller had reason to know from factors such as the identify or activities of the purchaser that the purchaser intended to use or convert the vans to school buses. When NHTSA proposed to amend the definition of "school bus" in consequence of the 1974 VSA amendments, we anticipated that there may be circumstances in which a manufacturer has no reason to know that one of its dealers has sold one

of its vehicles as a school bus. The agency expressly stated in the preamble to the proposal that if a dealer knowingly sold any multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV) or bus capable of being converted and used as a school bus to a school or a school bus contract operator, then the dealer would be responsible for certifying the vehicle's compliance with school bus standards. 40 FR 40854, September 4, 1975.

NHTSA maintains its long-standing position that the seller is the person in the chain of distribution most likely to know of a vehicle's intended use, and remains accountable for selling a vehicle as a school bus if the seller has reason to know whether the buyer intends such use. 40 FR 60033, December 31, 1975.

Your second question involves the term "schoolbus" as it is defined in the Vehicle Safety Act, @ 102(14) [15 U.S.C. @ 1391(14)]. That provision reads:

"'Schoolbus' means a passenger motor vehicle which is designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which the Secretary determines is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or se condary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools." (Emphasis supplied.)

You ask whether the Secretary has adopted a regulation that defines the term "significantly" as it is used in this statutory provision. The answer is no. The question of whether a motor vehicle is "likely to be significantly used" for transporting stude nts is one that the agency finds appropriate to resolve case-by-case, focusing upon the intended use of the vehicle. However, in the final rule amending the definition of "school bus," the agency stated its view that "the Congressional emphasis on 'sign ificant use' of a vehicle (is) a direction to extend the school bus standards to all buses that transport students, whether or not it is their primary purpose." 40 FR 60033, 60034. Emphasis supplied. In expressing this view, NHTSA specifically rejected a Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission (VESC) suggestion that the agency find "significant use" only where a bus was to be used "primarily" for transporting students. Id. Emphasis supplied. Therefore, when the agency considers "significant use," the ques tion of whether a vehicle primarily transports school staff is not determinative.

I hope you find this information helpful.

ID: nht88-1.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/22/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Hutchison, Anders & Associates, P.C.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Richard L. Hutchison Hutchison, Anders & Associates, P.C. 16860 S. Oak Park Av. Tinley Park, IL 60477

Dear Mr. Hutchison:

This responds to your October 14, 1987, letter asking about the applicability of Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, to "replacement gas caps" that your client intends to market. I apologize for the delay in responding.

You said that several of your client's customers have requested this agency's approval of your client's product. You asked for confirmation of your understanding that the gas caps do not have to be approved by the National Highway Traffic Safety correct. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with our Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Instead, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed), each manufacturer o f a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that is directly applicable to replacement gas caps. Safety Standard No. 301 applies only to completed new motor vehicles and specifies performance requirements that must be met by the fuel syst em as a whole following a barrier crash test. The standard does not apply to individual components of a fuel system or to aftermarket equipment for use on fuel systems.

Although Standard No. 301 would not directly apply to your client's replacement gas caps, there are responsibilities under Federal law of which your client should be aware. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, which includes aftermarket gas caps, ar e subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities.

In addition, there are prohibitions against certain modifications of new and used vehicles. Section 108(a)(2)(n) of the Safety Act specifies that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a new or used motor vehicle in compliance with any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Therefore, no person in any of the aforementioned categories may place your client's gas cap on a motor v ehicle if by so doing the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 301 were negatively affected.

Whether or not your client's replacement gas cap could be installed by a person in one of those categories on a vehicle without destroying the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 301 or any other Federal safety standard is a determination that must be made by any commercial business in the aforementioned categories of 5108(a)(2)(A) making the installation. NHTSA does not pass advance approval on motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment prior to the actual events that underlie a modification and we a re unable to offer any opinion on whether your client's gas cap would negatively affect a vehicle's fuel system performance.

The prohibition of 5108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who alter their own vehicles. Thus, under Federal law, they may install or remove any items of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, the agency encourages vehicle owners not to remove or otherwise tamper with vehicle safety equipment if the modification would degrade the safety of the vehicle.

We suggest that you contact the Environmental Protection Agency to see whether the EPA has any type of emissions standard that might affect your client's manufacture of his gas caps. The general telephone number for the EPA is (202) 382-2090.

I hope this information has been helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

Ms. Erika Z. Jones National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Avenue, Southwest Room 5219 Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones: I am writing in regard to my client who is selling a replacement gas cap on the open market. My associate, Ed Petty, had a telephone conversation on October 9, 1987 with Ms. Diedra Hom. She suggested that you were the person to contact regarding a legal interpretation of N.H.T.S.A. Safety Regulation #301.

My client is the manufacturer of a universal replacement gas cap which cannot be lost because of its hinged flip-open access top. Several of my client's customers have requested D.O.T. or N.H.T.S.A. approval of my client's product. Mr. Petty spoke with M r. Williams in your Rule Making Division on October 8, 1987. He thought that compliance with Safety Regulation #301 would not be required for my client's gas cap, If this exempt from regulation. However, if he is required to comply with any D.O.T. or N.H .T.S.A. regulation, I need to know what those regulations are and what he will be required to do to comply with them.

We will sincerely appreciate your prompt reply to this request. If you need any further information, please contact the undersigned by phone (1-312-532-7100) or by mail, at your earliest convenience. Thank you.

Very truly yours,

HUTCHINSON, ANDERS & ASSOC., P.C.

Richard L. Hutchison

ID: nht88-1.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/01/88 EST

FROM: JERRY'S SERVICE

TO: LEGAL OFFICE NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/19/88 TO DOUGLAS H BOSCO, FROM ERIKA Z JONES, REDBOOK A32 (2) STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 06/16/88, TO ERIKA Z. JONES, FROM DOUGLAS H. BOSCO; LETTER DATED 08/03/87 TO DOUGLAS H. BOSCO FROM ERIKA Z. JONES; LETTER DATED 06/09/88 TO JERRY K YOST FROM L. F ROLLIN; LETTER DATED 03/28/88 TO C-MORE-LITE JERRYS SERVICE FROM DON O. HORNING RE TEST REPORT NO 92606;

TEXT: NAME OF UNIT

C-More Light Headlight Relay.

DESCRIPTION OF UNIT

The unit is a replacement headlight relay. See technical drawings A-1, A-2, A-3, and A-4.

The C-More Light Headlight Relay allows the driver to select either high or low beam headlights, as is presently the case. The difference with this relay is that as the driver chooses to add more light by changing from low to high beams, the highbeam is added to the low beam; rather than turning the low beam off and the highbeam on. The choice is no longer either low or high; it is low beam always, with or without highbeam added.

BENEFITS OF THE UNIT

It can be added to virtually every motor vehicle as an after market device.

It can easily replace all headlight relays now being used during manufacture of motor vehicles.

It increases motoring safety by adding more light to the roadway. See diagrams B-1, B-2, and B-3. 2000 candle power is added during highbeam operation.

It increases motoring safety by continuing to light the dark area immediately in front of the motor vehicle now being created as low beams are turned off and highbeams are turned on. This area is overshot by highbeams.

It increases motoring safety by continuing to provide low beam illumination if high beam is defective. Currently, if one high beam is burned out and high beams are selected by the driver, there is no light from that side of the vehicle. This unit allow s the low beam to continue to provide light.

It increases motoring safety by eliminating the delay between low and highbeam operation. In properly functioning systems this delay is minescule and is hardly noticed by the average driver. However, as vehicles become older this delay often becomes lo nger and may be critical at highway speeds. The delay is eliminated by the continuous operation of the lowbeams.

PERFORMANCE TESTING OF THE UNIT

The units have been in limited use since 1965.

Drivers of the equipped vehicles report greater awareness during hours of darkness. Use of the unit does not seem to affect oncoming drivers as the added light is between the front of the vehicle and the area covered by the highbeams, and the lights are required to be dimmed in any case.

The C-More unit has not adversely affected the balance of the motor vehicle electrical system. If an electrical short occurs, the dimming system continues to operate in the old, "either/or" mode.

There appears to be greater low beam life; most likely due to a lessening of the number of on/off changes.

ID: nht88-1.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/22/88

FROM: M. IWASE -- MANAGER TECHNICAL ADMINISTRATION DEPT. KOITO MFG. CO., LTD.

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: INSTALLATION OF TAIL & STOP LAMP ONTO MOVING VEHICLE PART

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 09/15/88 TO M. IWASE FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 07/30/80 TO DIETMAR M HAENCHEN FROM FRANK BERNDT

TEXT: Dear Sir;

Thank you for your kind consideration which you have extended to us.

We, Koito Mfg. Co., Ltd., would like you to advise us about the tail & stop lamp as shown below;

(DRAWING OMITTED)

1. Lamp "A" having function of tail & stop lamp is fitted onto the moving vehicle part (trank lid, etc.).

2. Lamp "A" meets the min./max. values for both functions of tail & stop specified in FMVSS No. 108 at a design attitude when the moving part is closed.

It is designed that vehicle be driven with its trank lid closed. Therefore, Lamp "A" installed on moving part should be permissible, we think.

Question:

1. Whether such a tail & stop lamp fitted onto moving vehicle part could be permissible or not under FMVSS No. 108.

2. If Lamp "A" is turn signal lamp instead of tail & stop lamp, how about the permission under FMVSS No. 108.

Again, thanking you and awaiting your prompt reply, we remain,

With our best regards,

Yours very truly,

ID: nht88-1.51

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/23/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Nuvatec/Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. William B. Huber Senior Vice President Nuvatec/Inc. 3110 Woodcreek Drive Downers Grove, Illinois 60515

Dear Mr. Huber:

This response to your letter requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. You stated that you manufacture an electronic instrument cluster for use with van conversions and class "A" motorhomes and other vehicles. The gauges ar e of a bar graph type, and associated with each graph is an icon or symbol to indicate the graph function. During normal operation, the icons are illuminated to the same light intensity as the graphs. You stated that as an added feature, the icons blink when, and only when, that function becomes critical or dangerous, such as for low fuel, high temperature, low oil pressure, and low battery. You stated that some of your customers have expressed concern about using your instrument cluster because it may not comply with Standard No. 101, and you requested a formal opinion. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Vehicle Safety Act), it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements.

The Vehicle Safety Act authorizes NHTSA to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards set forth in 49 CFR Part 571. Manufacturers of motor vehicles must certify compliance of their products in accordance with Part 567, Certification. Persons altering a new vehicle prior to its first sale to a consumer are consi dered vehicle alterers under NHTSA's certification regulation. Part 567.7, Requirements for Persons who Alter Certified Vehicles, requires alterers to certify that the vehicle, as altered, complies with all applicable safety standards. Manufacturers, dis tributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses modifying a used vehicle are prohibited by Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety not from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or it em of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

Standard No. 101 (49 CFR Part 571.101) specifies requirements for the location, identification, and illumination of motor vehicle controls and displays. The standard's requirements for displays are applicable only to vehicles with a gross vehicle Height rating of less than 10,000 pounds. See section @5. For these vehicles, the gauges identified in your letter (fuel, temperature, oil pressure, and electrical charge) are displays regulated by the standard.

The primary issue raised by your letter is whether the identification of gauges may flash. As discussed below, Standard No. 101 does not prohibit such flashing.

Section @5.3.3 states:

@5.3.3(a) Means shall be provided for making controls, gauges, and the identification of those items visible to the driver under all driving conditions.

(b) The means for providing the required visibility-- (1) Shall be adjustable, except as provided in @5.3.3(d), to provide at least two levels of brightness, one of which is barely discernible to a driver who has adopted to dark ambient roadway conditions.

(2) May be operable manually or automatically, and

(3) May have levels of brightness at which those items and their identification are not visible.

(c) Effective September 1, 1989, if the level of brightness is adjusted by automatic means to a point where those items or their identification are not visible to the driver, a means shall be provided to enable the driver to restore visibility. (d) For a vehicle manufactured before September 1, 1989, the requirements of @5.3.3(b)(1) shall not apply to any gauge during the actuation of a telltale which shares a common light source with the gauge.

Under section @5.3.3(a), means must be provided for making the identification of gauges, i.e., the icons or symbols in your design, visible to the driver under all driving conditions. The on-and-off cycling of the identification occurring during flashing would create momentary periods of time when the identification is not visible.

However, it is our opinion that a flashing identification or other item is considered visible so long as it is visible during the on part of the cycle.

This opinion is limited to the specific issue addressed above and does not constitute an opinion an to whether your electronic instrument cluster complies with Standard No. 101.

As you may know, several amendments were made to Standard No. 101 during 1987. Enclosed for your information is a copy of the current standard.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

October 1, 1987

Chief Counsel National Highway Transportation Safety Association 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sir:

Yesterday I talked with a Mr. E. Glancy about an interpretation of FMVSS 101. Mr. Glancy indicated that it was against department policy to make interpretations over the phone, and we should make a written request with your office for a formal opinion.

Nuvatec manufactures an electronic instrument cluster for use with van conversions and class "A" motorhomes and other vehicles. The gages are of the bar graph type and associated with each graph is an icon or symbol to indicate the graph function. During normal operation, these icons are illuminated to the same brilliance as the graphs (as required by @101). As an added feature, we blink these icons when, and only when, that function becomes critical or dangerous, such as low fuel, high temperature, low oil pressure, and low battery. This blinking is similar to the blinking symbol for low fuel in the Lincoln electronic instrument cluster.

Some of our customers have expressed concern about using or instrument cluster because they may not comply with the referenced standard. Therefore, we are requesting a formal opinion. Your assistance will be greatly appreciated.

Should you require any additional material or information, please give me a call.

Sincerely,

William B. Huber Senior Vice President

WBH/slp

ID: nht88-1.52

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/23/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: LEONARD CAIN, -- DIRECTOR, SCHOOL BUILDING AND TRANSPORTATION -- MISSISSIPPI STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: JULY 30, 1987 LETTER FROM CAIN TO TILLMAN

TEXT: This letter responds to your inquiry of July 30, 1987, in which you pose some questions concerning the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards and Standard 17 to certain vehicles used for transporting school students. I apologize for the delay in this response.

Before I answer your specific questions, I think it might be useful to give you some general information on the Federal role in school bus regulation. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) deals with school buses under two different Federal laws: the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Vehicle Safety Act), and the Highway Safety Act.

In 1974, Congress amended the Vehicle Safety Act and directed NHTSA to issue safety standards respecting certain elements of school bus performance, and addressing any person who manufactures or sells a new "school bus." The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards issued under this Act are mandatory Federal standards that apply to school bus manufacturers and sellers. A school bus manufacturer must certify its vehicles as complying with Federal standards that are applicable to school buses. A seller ma y not sell a vehicle that does not comply with those standards if the seller has reason to know that the buyer intends to use the vehicle as a school bus.

NHTSA defines "school bus" as a motor vehicle designed for carrying 11 or more persons, including a driver, and sold for transporting students to and from school or school-related events. Note that in determining whether a vehicle is a school bus, one m ust consider both the vehicle's seating capacity, and its intended use.

Under the Highway Safety Act, NHTSA has issued guidelines (23 CFR No. 17, Highway Safety Program Standard) that cover a wide range of subjects relative to school bus identification, operation, and maintenance.

2

Different practices apply to "school vehicles" under the guidelines depending upon whether the vehicle is "Type I" or "Type II." This agency may recommend that an individual State adopt all or part of these guidelines as the State's own policy governing student transportation programs. However, pursuant to the Highway Safety Act, NHTSA does not require compliance with these guidelines. Instead, each individual State decides whether it will adopt some or all of these "Standards 17" guidelines.

Please keep this information in mind as I answer your questions in order. I have assumed in answering your questions that the activities to which you refer are school-related.

Question 1a: Does a vehicle (type 1 bus) purchased by a local public school district for transporting students for only activity purposes have to conform to all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards?

The answer to your question is "yes." However, the agency's regulatory and enforcement authority is directed toward the person manufacturing or selling a school bus. This agency can not regulate purchase or use of a school bus, and consequently can n ot require a school district to purchase a particular kind of vehicle for transporting students. As noted above, the definition of "school bus" includes vehicles sold for transporting students to and from school-related events. An activity bus is a sch ool bus under this functional definition. Therefore, a manufacturer or seller of a vehicle who has reason to believe that the vehicle's intended use is solely for transporting students to and from school-related activities must ensure its compliance with any Federal safety standard that applies to a school bus.

Question 1b: Does a bus purchased and used solely for activity purposes have to be painted school bus yellow?

School bus color is a matter addressed under the guidelines set out in "Standard 17" discussed above. Accordingly, the answer to your question depends on the laws and regulations of Mississippi. There is no Federal standard requiring that a manufacture r or seller paint a school bus a particular color.

Question 2a: Does a van (designed to carry 11 or more persons) purchased by a local public school district for transporting students for only activity purposes have to conform to all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards?

Recall again that our regulations are directed to school bus manufacturers and sellers. A van designed to carry 11 or more persons, and intended to transport students to and from school-related events is a "school bus" under the agency's definition. Th erefore, a manufacturer or seller would have to ensure the vehicle's compliance with any applicable Federal safety standard. To determine whether a local school district may use a noncomplying vehicle it purchases, you must look to state law.

3

Question 2b: Does a van purchased and used solely for activity purposes have to be painted school bus yellow?

Again, for the reasons set out in my answer to Question 1b, the answer to this question depends on the laws of your State.

I hope you find this information helpful.

ID: nht88-1.53

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/23/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA 2. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: JAY COSTA -- ASSISTANT PROCUREMENT SPECIALIST, METROPOLITAN SEATTLE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 7-21-87, TO ERIKA Z. JONES, FROM JAY COSTA; MEMO DATED 6-18-87, CONTRACT No. T/F 19-84 REAR EMERGENCY WINDOW; MEMO DATED 6-25-87, CONTRACT NO. T/F 19-83 REAR EMERGENCY WINDOW

TEXT: I am responding to your letter seeking an interpretation of Standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release (49 CFR @ 571.217). Specifically, you expressed concern that some transit system passengers are opening the rear emergency exits on your public tr ansit vehicles. Apparently, some passengers open these emergency exits to commit acts of vandalism. You state that "in the interest of safety the rear emergency window (in these vehicles) should be removed and replaced with a non-operable type window." You asked whether Standard 217 would prohibit your "body shop" from modifying your "transit buses" in this manner.

Assuming that your body shop does not hold itself out to the public as a business that repairs motor vehicles for compensation, the shop would not be prohibited from modifying the buses as you describe.

Under paragraph S5.2.1 of Standard 217, buses that have a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or more (such as your transit buses) must have at least one "rear emergency exit", unless the configuration of the bus precludes installing an accessib le rear exit. The manufacturer of your buses has stated that the bus configuration does not preclude installing an accessibel rear exit. Therefore, your manufacturer must deliver buses that are equipped with a rear emergency exit.

On the other hand, your "repair shop" is subject to different considerations. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a)(2)(A)) prohibits certain commercial establishments from "rendering inoperative" an y device or element of design included on or in a vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. In your example, the rear emergency exit is an element of design included in the buses in compliance with an applicable safety standard, and remo ving these exits would render inoperative that element of design.

However, the "render inoperative" prohibition applies only to manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses. A "motor vehicle repair business" is defined in @ 108(a)(2)(A) as "any person who holds himself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensatin." Please note that the "render inoperative" provision does not apply to a vehicle owner. The vehicle owner may modify his or her vehicle without violating any Federal requirements, irrespective of whether the modification affects the vehicle's compliance with a safety standard.

Assuming that your transit system body shop does not hold itself out to the publci as being in the business of repairing motor vehicles for compensation, it can make the modification you describe without violating any Federal requirements.

The problem you describe apparently involves the design for releasing the kind of emergency window exit in your vehicles. Standard 217 does not require a specific design for releasing an emergency exit. Rather, the Standard sets out a ceiling for the m agnitude of force necessary to release the exit, and a required direction for applying the release force. The transit system could replace the "operable" rear emergency window with a push-out window or other type of design that would still meet the rele ase requirements of Standard 217, yet make it difficult or impossible for a passenger to commit the acts of vandalism you describe.

Please note that the purpose of our emergency exit requirements for buses is to facilitate quick and safe rider exit in the event of an emergency. Though nothing prohibits you from modifying the vehicles to close off the rear emergency exit, I urge you to give your fullest consideration to the implications of making this modification. It is NHTSA's position that compliance with Standard 217 is the safest way to facilitate vehicle exit in an emergency, and it is my opinion that you needn't eliminate th e rear window exit to resolve your problem. Further, you might want to check with the State of Washington to learn if it prohibits modifications that would make your transit buses no longer comply with Standard 217.

I hope you find this information helpful.

ID: nht88-1.54

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/24/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Captain Robert W. Barthelmess

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Captain Robert W. Barthel Box 5744 APO, NY 09633

Dear Captain Barthelmess:

This is in reply to your letter of December 30, 1987, to this agency with respect to the requirements for importing tires without the DOT symbol.

You have asked whether the DOT symbol must still appear on the tires of vehicles that conform to the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The answer is yes; there has been no change in the requirement that the DOT symbol appear on the sidewall of tires manufactured as either original or replacement equipment. The DOT is the manufacturer's certification of compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. In your letter, you stated that one individual at the Army Air Force Ex change Service indicated that the DOT symbol had been replaced by a series of numbers. This individual may have confused the requirement for the DOT symbol with a different Federal requirement for an identification number to appear on tires. The tire ide ntification number, along other things, assists in the tracing and recalling of tires which may prove to be noncomplying or defective. The requirement for the tire identification number is in addition to, not in place of, the requirement for the DOT symb ol.

You have also asked (with reference to service personnel like yourself who recently bought non-DOT marked tires for your U.S. type automobiles) whether there is a technical possibility of denial of entry to vehicles certified as meeting U.S. safety speci fication but equipped with tires not bearing the DOT symbol. The general procedure is that when a motor vehicle arrives at the port of entry it will be inspected to see whenever it bears the manufacturer's certification of compliance (generally in the dr iver's door post area). We do not know whether Customs makes it a practice to inspect vehicles of U.S. origin for this certificate when a serviceman is returning to the States. If an inspection occurs and the vehicle bears the certification, the vehicle is admitted without further inspection. It is possible, of course, that a Customs inspector could happen to notice in passing the lack of the DOT symbol on the tires. In this instance, as the vehicle would not be in conformity with all applicable standar ds, the Customs inspector could require entry of the vehicle under bond, which would be released upon the importer's production of a statement to this agency that the noncompliance had been corrected. Although we are not aware of any instance in which th is has actually happened, you may wish to contact Customs with respect to its inspection procedures. You may also wish to write GoodYear asking for a statement that the Vector tires comply with Standard NO. 109, which could be presented to Customs should questions arise.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones

Chief Counsel

ID: nht88-1.55

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/25/88

FROM: JERRY SMITH -- MINNESOTA BODY AND EQUIPMENT COMPANY

TO: SHANON FORD -- DIRECTOR SOUTHEAST IOWA COMMUNITY ACTION ORGANIZATION, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/26/88 TO R.C. ROST FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 03/18/88 TO CHIEF COUNCIL -- NHTSA, FROM R & C ROST RE REQUEST THAT HEADSTART BUSES NOT BE REQUIRED TO HAVE ROOF WARNING LIGHTS IF A COL OR OTHER THAN SCHOOL BUS YELLOW IS USED, OCC-1763; LETTER DATED 12/21/77, TO JAMES TYDINGS FROM JOSEPH J LEVIN; LETTER DATED 02/11/88 TO SHANON L FOND FROM JERRY SMITH RE FEDERAL INTERPRETATION OF SCHOOL BUS USER; UNDATED BROCHURES ON SCHOOLBUS BY WAYNE CORPORATION

TEXT: As per our telephone conversation today, I am enclosing a copy of my Wayne cost sheet which reflects $ 107.75 for the warning lights which is included in my bid price for the Wayne Chaperone submitted on February 12, 1988.

As agreed, time is of the essence to maintaine a desirable delivery date and to utilize the chassis that was bid.

Therefore, please issue your purchase order at your earliest convience Upon receipt of your order, I will be able to establish a production "slot" for your bus with out further delay.

Between the time that I receive your order and actual production starts we will have approximately 60 days in which to resolve the warning Light issue.

Hopefully by working with the Head Start regional office in Kansas City, IDOT and Wayne Corporation, we can resolve the issue prior to the production start date.

Upon resolution, we will delete the warning lights from the body order, which in turn will be reflected in a reduction of $ 107.75 from the bid price.

I will continue to give this problem my close attention in an effort to obtain the light reduction and ensuing credit for you.

Please send your purchase order to my attention and as follows:

Minnesota Body & Equipment Company P.O. Box 218 Waukee, Iowa 50263

Sincerely,

30 years of treating customers FAIRLY and SERVICING What we sell.

Proud of our past!

MINNESOTA BODY & EQUIPMENT CO. 7380 HIGHWAY 101 SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379

OUR Services:

Leasing/Financing Service/Parts Bid Specifications Handicapped Equipment Equipment Evaluations Customer Needs

Service Department:

PATRICK O'REILLEY, Service Manager 6 years with Minnesota Body

MARK ENDERSON, Service Technician 3 years with Minnesota Body

WESLEY MOEDING, Field Service Coordinator 7 years with Minnesota Body

An Investment in YOUR future

Customer Satisfaction -- Best Advertisement

Thirty Years of selling and servicing Quality-Built buses speaks for itself. Our customers know of our commitment to them and how we stand behind that commitment. It is not just talk, but a fact that we take great pride in and customers know they can de pend on our firm.

We hope you will join with us in celebrating our 30th year.

Let us be a part of your vehicle planning and growth, so that together we can face the 1990s.

Bob Rost, President

These people are here to serve you regarding your transportation needs.

ROBERT ROST, President 31 years experience

GARY SELANDER, New & Used Bus Sales -- Minnesota 27 years experience

ROGER BLOHM, New & Used Bus Sales -- Nationwide 11 years experience

JOHN ROBERTS, New & Used Bus Sales -- Minnesota-Wisconsin 3 years experience

JERRY SMITH, New & Used Bus Sales -- Iowa Manager 6 years experience

GRANT WELLBORN, New & Used Bus Sales -- Iowa 32 years experience

MARK ROST, New & Used Bus Sales -- Minnesota-Wisconsin 1 year experience

KIRK LARSON, Accounting & Parts 12 years experience