ID: nht95-2.61

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 1, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Charles Tucker

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/21/95 LETTER FROM CHARLES TUCKER TO GAYLE D. DALRYMPLE (OCC 10822)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Tucker:

This responds to your letter of March 21, 1995, requesting a letter stating that your van can be modified by replacing "the factory installed steering wheel with the smaller ASTECH steering wheel without an air bag." Your letter explains that your range- of-motion is limited from multiple sclerosis and that the smaller steering wheel improves your ability to drive. During a March 31, 1995 phone call with Mary Versailles of my staff you explained that the van is also equipped with a wheelchair lift and t hat the floor of the vehicle has been lowered. As explained in this letter, replacement of your steering wheel is permitted provided that a lap/shoulder safety belt is installed at the driver's position.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are requir ed to certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards before they can be offered for sale. If a certified vehicle is modified, other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components, prior to its fir st retail sale, the person making the modification is an alterer and is required to certify that, as altered the vehicle continues to conform to all applicable safety standards.

After the first retail sale, there is one limit on modifications made to vehicles. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition would require a business which modifies motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard.

NHTSA has exercised its authority to issue Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Standard No. 208 requires light trucks and vans manufactured on or after September 1, 1991 to be capable of providing occupant crash protection to front seat occupant s when the vehicle is crash tested at 30 miles per hour (mph) into a concrete barrier. A vehicle that provides this crash protection will increase the safety of vehicle occupants. The air bag installed in your van is one means of complying with this re quirement.

As a result of this new requirement, this agency received a number of phone calls and letters, from both van converters and individuals like yourself, suggesting that the new light truck and van crash testing requirement will, in effect, prohibit van con verters from modifying vehicles to accommodate the special needs of persons in wheelchairs. The agency also received a petition asking for an amendment to the light truck and van crash test requirement in Standard No. 208 to address this problem.

As a result on that petition, on March 2, 1993, this agency amended Standard No. 208 to allow manufacturers of light trucks and vans an alternative to complying with the existing requirement. Under the amendment, "vehicles manufactured for operation by persons with disabilities" are excluded from the light truck and van automatic crash protection requirement. Instead, these vehicles must be equipped with a Type 2 manual belt (integrated lap and shoulder belt) or Type 2A manual belt (non-integrated lap and shoulder belt) at the front outboard seating positions. n1 A "vehicle manufactured for operation by persons with disabilities" is defined as

vehicles that incorporate a level change device (e.g., a wheelchair lift or a ramp) for onloading or offloading an occupant in a wheelchair, an interior element of design intended to provide the vertical clearance necessary to permit a person in a wheelc hair to move between the lift or ramp and the driver's position or to occupy that position, and either an adaptive control or special driver seating accommodation to enable persons who have limited use of their arms or legs to operate a vehicle. For pur poses of this definition, special driver seating accommodations include a driver's seat easily removable with means installed for that purpose or with simple tools, or a driver's seat with extended adjustment capability to allow a person to easily transf er from a wheelchair to the driver's seat.

n1 The March 2 final rule was further amended on May 18, 1994 to allow the installation of Type 2A manual belts.

Based on the information you provided, your van would come within this definition. Therefore, if the modifier of your van would be considered an alterer, it may certify that, with the air bag removed, the vehicle continues to conform to all applicable s afety standards, provided that the safety belts are not removed. If the modification is done after the first retail sale, removal of the air bag would not violate the "make inoperative" prohibition, provided that the safety belts are not removed.

I hope this information has been helpful. I have also forwarded a copy of this letter to the modifier indicated in your letter. If you have other questions or need some additional information, please contact Mary Versailles at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-2.62

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 1, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Robert Closson -- Spartan Motors, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Closson:

On February 9, 1995, the Chief Counsel, Philip Recht, wrote you asking that you furnish additional information with respect to your application for temporary exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 105 and 301. A copy of this letter is attach ed for your reference.

Mr. Recht asked you to provide this information within 30 days of your receipt of his letter. As of today, we have not heard further from you. Please understand that we cannot delay indefinitely a decision upon your application. If we have not heard fr om you by May 25, we shall proceed to a decision without the benefit of your comments on issues of safety that concern us.

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

ID: nht95-2.63

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 1, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Paul D. Kelly -- Albertson, Ward & McCaffrey

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/2/95 LETTER FROM PAUL D. KELLY TO PHILIP RECHT (OCC 10710)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Kelly:

This responds to your letter of February 2, 1995, requesting permission or a waiver from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to allow one of your clients, a "corporation specializing in modification of vehicles for handicapped and disabled citizens," to modify a vehicle for one of its customers. You explained that the customer "suffers from a neuromuscular disorder which renders her partially paralyzed." You further explained that "(s)he cannot turn the factory steering wheel bec ause it is too thick for her to hold and too wide for her to see the gauges." You described previous modifications done for this customer as follows:

the steering box on a stock vehicle (would be) removed and the steering mechanism would be adjusted at a machine shop to a low effort or zero effort steering gear. From this point after-market steering wheels and column adapter kits would be installed t o accept this new steering wheel.

You explained that your client was concerned that they would no longer be permitted to make such modifications as removal of the original steering wheel also results in removal of the air bag. During an April 4, 1995 phone call with Mary Versailles of m y staff you explained that the vehicle is also equipped with a wheelchair lift and that the floor of the vehicle has been lowered. As explained in this letter, replacement of the steering wheel is permitted provided that a lap/shoulder safety belt is in stalled at the driver's position.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (49 USC @ 30111). Manufa cturers are required to certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards before they can be offered for sale (49 USC @ 30112). If a certified vehicle is modified, other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily atta chable components, prior to its first retail sale, the person making the modification is an alterer and is required to certify that, as altered the vehicle continues to conform to all applicable safety standards (49 CFR @ 567.7).

After the first retail sale, there is one limit on modifications made to vehicles. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard (49 USC @ 30122). In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition would require a business which modifies motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard.

NHTSA has exercised its authority to issue Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.208). Standard No. 208 requires light trucks and vans manufactured on or after September 1, 1991 to be capable of providing occupant crash protection to front seat occupants when the vehicle is crash tested at 30 miles per hour (mph) into a concrete barrier. A vehicle that provides this crash protection will increase the safety of vehicle occupants. The air bag installed in the customer's vehicle is o ne means of complying with this requirement.

As a result of this new requirement, this agency received a number of phone calls and letters, from both van converters and individuals suggesting that the new light truck and van crash testing requirement will, in effect, prohibit van converters from mo difying vehicles to accommodate the special needs of persons in wheelchairs. The agency also received a petition asking for an amendment to the light truck and van crash test requirement in Standard No. 208 to address this problem.

As a result on that petition, on March 2, 1993, this agency amended Standard No. 208 to allow manufacturers of light trucks and vans an alternative to complying with the existing requirement (58 FR 11975). Under the amendment, "vehicles manufactured for operation by persons with disabilities" are excluded from the light truck and van automatic crash protection requirement. Instead, these vehicles must be equipped with a Type 2 manual belt (integrated lap and shoulder belt) or Type 2A manual belt (non- integrated lap and shoulder belt) at the front outboard seating positions. n1 A "vehicle manufactured for operation by persons with disabilities" is defined as

vehicles that incorporate a level change device (e.g., a wheelchair lift or a ramp) for onloading or offloading an occupant in a wheelchair, an interior element of design intended to provide the vertical clearance necessary to permit a person in a wheelc hair to move between the lift or ramp and the driver's position or to occupy that position, and either an adaptive control or special driver seating accommodation to enable persons who have limited use of their arms or legs to operate a vehicle. For pur poses of this definition, special driver seating accommodations include a driver's seat easily removable with means installed for that purpose or with simple tools, or a driver's seat with extended adjustment capability to allow a person to easily transf er from a wheelchair to the driver's seat.

n1 The March 2 final rule was further amended on May 18, 1994 to allow the installation of Type 2A manual belts (59 FR 25826).

Based on the information you provided, the customer's van would come within this definition. Therefore, if your client would be considered an alterer, it may certify that, with the air bag removed, the vehicle continues to conform to all applicable safe ty standards, provided that the safety belts are not removed. If the modification is done after the first retail sale, removal of the air bag would not violate the "make inoperative" prohibition, provided that the safety belts are not removed.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have other questions or need some additional information, please contact Mary Versailles at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-2.64

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 2, 1995

FROM: Bonnie Ward -- Director of Transportation, Eagle County School District (Colorado)

TO: Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/2/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO BONNIE WARD (REDBOOK 2; PART 571); ALSO ATTACHED TO 5/28/85 LETTER FROM DIANE K. STEED TO GEORGE L. SIMONTON

TEXT: Dear Sir:

I am preparing a presentation for our district administrators detailing a comparison of the safety standards for over-the-road passenger buses versus school buses. I requested and received the enclosed letter from Charlie Hott, which is very informat ive about school buses, but gives very little information about over-the-road buses.

In a follow up conversation with Mr. Hott, he assures me that these regulations are above and beyond the requirements for over-the-road coaches. I would like this statement in writing. Any additional information you have concerning the safety standa rds for over-the-road coaches would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your information and support.

Enclosure (letter)

Ms. Bonnie Ward Eagle County School District P.O. Box 740 Eagle, CO 81631

Dear Ms. Ward:

Thank you for your recent inquiry about the differences in the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) between over-the-road type buses and school buses. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for establishing FMVSSs to reduce the number of fatalities and injuries that result from motor vehicle crashes, including those involving school buses and over-the-road type buses.

You stated in your letter dated March 20, 1995, that you wished a comparison between the crashworthiness of over-the-road buses and school buses. However, in a follow up conversation, you stated that a comparison of the FMVSSs would suffice because of t he lack of crash test data in that area.

In 1974 Congress directed NHTSA to establish or upgrade school bus safety standards in eight areas: Emergency Exits; Interior occupant protection; Floor strength, Seating systems; Crashworthiness of the body and frame; Vehicle operating systems; Windshields and windows; and Fuel systems.

As a result of the 1974 amendments to the Highway Safety Act, three new motor vehicle safety standards were established and four existing standards were amended. Standard No. 220, "School bus Rollover Protection" improved the structural resistance of sc hool buses in rollover-type accidents. Standard No. 221, "School bus Body Joint Strength" improved the strength of the joints between panels which make-up the school bus body. Standard No. 222, "School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection" improv ed the crash protection provided by school buses through a series of interior changes known as "compartmentalization" -- well padded, well anchored, closely spaced high-backed seats that are designed to absorb energy.

Standard No. 105, "Hydraulic Brake Systems" was amended to upgrade the requirements for hydraulic brakes on school buses. Standard No. 111, "Rearview Mirrors" was amended to establish requirements for cross-view mirrors on school buses. Standard No. 21 7, "Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release" was modified to require all school buses to be equipped with either a rear exit door or a side exit door and rear push-out window. Standard No. 301, "Fuel System Integrity" amended fuel system in tegrity requirements for large school buses. All of these requirements were effective for school buses manufactured after April 1, 1977.

Recently, there have been several additional changes to the FMVSSs for school buses. Additional emergency exits were required, depending on the capacity of the school bus. These exits included emergency exit doors, emergency roof exits, and emergency e xit windows. A standard that required stop signal arms on all school buses was implemented. The mirror standard was amended to require that the driver be able to see the area directly in front of and along both sides of the school bus. These last two standards were implemented to reduce the number of fatalities that occur outside the school bus, typically in the loading zone. School bus pedestrian fatalities account for the highest number of school bus related fatalities each year.

School buses must meet the above mentioned safety standards in addition to the FMVSSs that are applicable to over-the-road type buses.

In the legislative history of the School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974, Congress stated that school transportation should be held to the highest level of safety, since such transportation involves the Nation's most precious cargo -- children who represen t our future. As a result, NHTSA believes that school buses should be as safe as possible. Under Federal law, dealers are prohibited from selling or leasing buses for use in transporting students to and from school and school-related activities, unless they comply with Federal school bus safety standards. Federal regulations do not prohibit the use of over-the-road buses by schools, but require any bus sold or leased for use as a school bus to meet the safety standards applicable to school buses.

School bus transportation has been and continues to be one of the safest forms of transportation in America. Occupant deaths in school buses per vehicle mile traveled are about one-fourth those for passenger automobiles. Every year, approximately 394,0 00 public school buses travel approximately 4.3 billion miles to transport 23.5 million children to and from school and school-related activities. Since 1983, on the average, 11 passengers per year have died in school bus crashes. While each of these f atalities is tragic, the numbers of fatalities among school bus occupants are small when compared to those in other types of motor vehicles. For example, in 1993, 3 children between the ages of 5 and 18 died in crashes of school-bus-body type vehicles. During the same year, 5357 children between the ages of 5 and 18 died as passengers or drivers in all other types of motor vehicles. School bus pedestrian fatalities account for the highest number of school bus related fatalities each year. There are about 30 such fatalities per year, about two-thirds of which involve the school bus itself and about one-third of which involve motorists illegally passing the stopped school bus.

I hope that this information is helpful to you. If I can be of further assistance, please contact me or Charles Hott, Safety Standards Engineer, at 202-366-0247.

Sincerely,

Leon DeLarm, Chief Pedestrian, Heavy Truck, and Child Crash Protection Division, NHTSA

ID: nht95-2.65

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 3, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Lance Tunick -- Vehicle Science Corporation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/14/95 LETTER FROM LANCE TUNICK TO TAYLOR VINSON (OCC 10854)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Tunick:

This is in reply to your letter of April 14, 1995, to Taylor Vinson of this Office asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Specifically, you are concerned with the meaning of the words "outer lens surface" that appear in SAE Standard J586 Stop Lamps for use on Motor Vehicles Less Than 2032 mm in Overall Width FEB84, an SAE standard incorporated by reference in Standard No. 1 08. These words appear as part of the visibility specifications under the installation requirements. You point out that "outer lens surface" as not been defined either by the SAE or by NHTSA. You believe that the phrase within the context of SAE J586 can mean "light emitting surface" as defined in SAE J387, and ask for confirmation.

According to Standard No. 108 (SAE J586), "to be considered visible, the lamp must provide an unobstructed view of the outer lens surface of at least 12.5 square centimeters measured at 45 degrees to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle." SAE Information Report J387 Terminology - Motor Vehicle Lighting OCT88 defines "light emitting surface" as "all or part of the exterior surface of the transparent or translucent lens that encloses the lighting or light signalling device and allows conformance with phot ometric and calorimetric requirements."

We believe that it would be appropriate to substitute the definition of "light emitting surface" for "outer lens surface" in SAE J586. The "outer lens surface" of J586 appears to mean the same as "the exterior surface of the transparent or translucent l ens" of J387. Thus, stop lamp visibility conformance would require an unobstructed view of the light emitting surface of at least 12.5 square centimeters.

As always, Taylor will be happy to answer any further questions you may have on this matter (202-366-5263).

ID: nht95-2.66

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 3, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jeffrey D. Shetler -- Manager of Government Relations, Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/2/95 LETTER FROM JEFFREY D. SHETLER TO NHTSA OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL

TEXT: Dear Mr. Shetler:

This responds to your letter of February 2, 1995, asking whether Safety Standards Nos. 108 and 123 permit a motorcycle turn signal pilot indicator to be green.

You have noted that, under Table III of Standard No. 108, SAE J588 NOV84 is the appropriate standard that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has incorporated by reference for motorcycle turn signal lamps. You have further noted t hat the SAE standard specifies requirements for turn signal pilot indicators if the front turn signal lamps are not readily visible to the driver. Finally, paragraph 5.4.3.3 of SAE J588 specifies that the indicator, if located on the outside of the vehi cle, should emit a yellow-colored light. On the other hand, Standard No. 123, which specifies requirements for turn signal lamp identification, does not specify a color for turn signal pilot indicators.

You believe that SAE J588 was written with passenger cars in mind and that its color and area requirements are specified because the location of an outside indicator lamp is further away than a lamp located inside the vehicle on the instrument panel. Yo u also believe that Standard No. 123 does not need to address distance from the driver's eye because the turn signal lamp will always be within a reasonable distance from the driver's eye. Thus, you have concluded that any pilot lamp color would be acce ptable.

We have reviewed specifications of both the SAE and Standard No. 123. SAE J588 NOV84 Turn Signal Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles Less Than 2032 MM in Overall Width is incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, and, under Table III, is the standard s pecified for motorcycle turn signal lamps. Because paragraph S5.1.1 of Standard No. 108 does not contain a section modifying the applicability of J588 to motorcycles, all the requirements of J588 apply to motorcycles, including turn signal pilot indicat ors and their color. All that Standard No. 123 does, through Table III, is to specify the shape of the turn signal indicator. It is silent as to the color of the indicator.

We believe that you are correct in your conclusion that J588 was not written with motorcycles in mind, at least for two-wheeled motorcycles such as Kawasaki makes. Two colors are prescribed by SAE J588, the choice of which depends on the location of the indicator. Under paragraph 5.4.3.2, a green-colored light "with a minimum area of 18 sq. mm." must be used "if the illuminated indicator is located inside the vehicle." Under 5.4.3.3 a yellow-colored light with "a minimum projected illuminated area of 60 sq. mm." must be used "if the illuminated indicators are located on the outside of the vehicle, for example on the front fenders." Since two-wheeled motorcycles do not have enclosed cabins, all references to "inside" and "outside" the vehicle are inap posite.

Since you brought this matter to our attention, we have conducted an informal survey of the color of turn signal indicators on motorcycles sold in the United States. We find that the predominant color is amber, though Harley-Davidson, accounting for 12% of the market, uses green. We view the use of either color as in accord with J588. Therefore, if Kawasaki wishes to change its indicator color from amber to green, it will not violate Standard No. 108 by doing so.

As J588's color specifications are coupled with those for the minimum illuminated area of the display, and you have not raised the question of an appropriate size for a green turn signal indicator, we call your attention to paragraph S5.2.2 of Standard N o. 123 which requires that the display for turn signal lamps and other equipment "be visible to a seated operator under daylight conditions."

If you have any further questions, Taylor Vinson of this office will be glad to answer them for you (202-366-5263).

ID: nht95-2.67

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 3, 1995

FROM: Doug Russell -- Design Engineer, Advance Engineered Products

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS 121 Paragraph S5.4.2.2 Brake Power

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 06/29/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO DOUG RUSSELL (A43; STD. 121)

TEXT: Dear Sir

Recently, I have been reviewing test data used to certify brake components to FMVSS - 121. Could you please answer two questions which arose as a result of this review:

1. Paragraph S5.4.2.2. of FMVSS - 121 requires that a deceleration be made from 20 mi/hr to a stop at an average rate of 14 ft/s<2>. A maximum service line brake pressure is not specified for this deceleration. Thus, in order to meet the deceleration requirement, a service line pressure exceeding 100 lbs/in<2> could be used despite the fact that tractor - trailer brakes are usually configured to operate at a maximum nominal brake pressure of 100 psi. Are there any limitations on the pressure which c an be used to achieve the required deceleration rates?

2. Test results from one of Advance's suppliers show that the actual deceleration rate was approximately 15% below the 14 ft/s<2> specified in paragraph S5.4.2.2. I have discussed these results with NHTSA's Richard Carter, and according to him the mini mum requirements of FMVSS-121 have not been met. However, according to the supplier, this stop must be done as part of the whole dynamometer test procedure but not meeting the deceleration requirements for this particular stop does not constitute a fall. Have any interpretations been made which allow a reduced deceleration rate?

Please call if you have any questions. Thank-you

ID: nht95-2.68

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 4, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Valter Sforca

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/20/95 LETTER FROM VALTER SFORCA TO PHILIPE RECHT (OCC 10866)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Sforca:

This is in reply to your letter of April 20, 1995, asking if there is a regulation that applies to the importation of an "air equalizer for tire pressure."

Although you have not described your device, there are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to equipment installed in motor vehicles that regulate the air pressure of tires. If you are asked by the U.S. Customs Service to execute an HS-7 Declaration Form at the port of entry, you may check Box 1, declaring that the equipment was manufactured on a date when no applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard was in effect.

Because this device is motor vehicle equipment, and because you apparently would be its importer, you would be responsible for notifying buyers and recalling it if either you or we decided that it contained a safety related defect.

We don't understand your phrase "the system have a safety valve for the air brakes the truck, for a properly stop". However, if the "air equalizer" is installed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, that person must n ot knowingly make inoperative any part of a truck's air brake system by installing the air equalizer. I am enclosing a copy of a letter concerning what appears to be a similar device, which will explain this more fully.

If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office, with whom you spoke previously (202-366-5263).

ID: nht95-2.69

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 4, 1995

FROM: Paul David Wellstone -- United States Senator

TO: Regina Sullivan -- Director, Office of Congressional Affairs, U.S. DOT

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/25/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO PAUL DAVID WELLSTONE (PART 571)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Sullivan:

I have been contacted by a constituent of mine, Kris Solberg, about the problem The Grace Christian School is having with the federal government's definition of what constitutes a school bus. I have enclosed a copy of their letter for your review.

The Grace Christian School does not understand why the federal law does not allow the use of 15 passenger vans to transport students to school events.

I would appreciate it if you would review their situation and address their concerns. Please advise me of your findings and direct your response to Scott Adams, a member of my staff, at:

2550 University Avenue W., # 100N St. Paul, MN 55114 612/645-0323

Thank you for your assistance.

Enclosure

GRACE BAPTIST CHURCH

January 31, 1995

Senator Paul Wellstone Hart Office Bldg Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Wellstone:

A large number of schools are facing a difficult legal situation with regards to transportation, for which we need your help.

LEGAL SITUATION: The federal government, since the 1970's, has defined a school bus as "a passenger motor vehicle which is designed or used to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, . . . for the purpose of transporting . . . school stu dents . . .". For years, this definition was largely overlooked. Recently, the federal government has increased pressure on state legislatures to certify state statutes concerning school buses to comply with federal laws.

In 1992, Minnesota passed laws (MN statutes 1992, section 124.225) which comply with the federal definition of a school bus. Our Minnesota laws make it illegal to use a 15 passenger van to transport school students because: 1) it is classified as a bus, but 2) it does not meet all the requirements of a school bus.

HARDSHIP CREATED: 1) Some schools are being forced out of participation in extra-curricular, and even co-curricular activities, because they cannot afford to purchase and operate an official school bus. A small private school from our area, which has a nice van, announced last week that they will have to cancel their winter athletics programs, because they cannot afford to purchase a school bus. 2) The requirement is grossly wasteful. When we send, as we frequently do, sports teams, quiz teams, debat e teams etc., of 5 to 10 students, operating a bus is many times more costly than operating a van.

INEQUITIES OF THE LAW: We have been told that these laws have been passed in the name of safety. However:

1) A 15 passenger van is deemed safe enough for the legal transportation of Sunday School children.

2) A 15 passenger van is safe enough for churches to use in transporting "youth groups".

3) Youth camps, daycares, and youth clubs may use 15 passenger vans.

4) Airports, casinos, motels, etc., may transport passengers, including children, in passenger vans.

5) Station wagons, 7 passenger vans, and automobiles may legally be used to transport school students. These vehicles are not safer than 15 passenger vans.

Conclusion: The 15 passenger van is not an unsafe vehicle. It is, rather, the unfortunate victim of a law written before the 15 passenger van's existence. It is excluded by an unjustified technicality.

PROPOSAL

I. Amend the federal definition of a school bus to read "a vehicle which is designed to transport more than 15 passengers, including the drive . . ." rather than the current," 10 passenger, not including the driver.

II. Require that vehicles designed to transport 15 passengers or less, including vans, wagons, and automobiles, which are used to transport school students be required to be inspected annually, as school buses currently are.

We appreciate your attention to this matter. Please let us know what can be done to improve this.

Sincerely,

Kris Solberg, Principal GRACE CHRISTIAN SCHOOL 600 Lind St. Mankato, MN 56001

ID: nht95-2.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 21, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Paul N. Wagner -- President, Bornemann Products, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 1/10/95 LETTER FROM PAUL N. WAGNER TO PHILIP R. RECHT

TEXT: Dear Mr. Wagner:

This responds to your letter of January 10, 1995, requesting further interpretation of how the requirements of Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, would apply to an integrated seat.

Your first question is a follow-up to our December 23, 1994, letter concerning the requirements of S4.2.1 of Standard No. 207. Section S4.2.1 states:

Except for vertical movement of nonlocking suspension type occupant seats in trucks or buses, the seat shall remain in its adjusted position during the application of each force specified in S4.2.

You asked for confirmation that a "rachet-style seat recliner mechanism may not have its adjustment teeth shear during the test, . . . . assuming that the shearing of the recliner's teeth is a change in detent position." This is correct.

Your second question concerns "continuous engagement." You described "continuous engagement" as follows:

continuous engagement . . . . simply implies that the seat recliner or slides will always be in a locked position, even during adjustment. Some slides and recliners, for adjustment purposes, must be "unlocked," or released, allowing for the adjustment t o be made, but then automatically relock when the desired position is achieved; this adjustment is not considered to be as continuously engaged, since the mechanism is in a released state during adjustment.

An apparatus that might be considered to be a continuous engagement device might be a screw-drive mechanism, which can be adjusted by revolution, but would always have a locking feature, even during adjustment (and never be in a released position).

You asked whether the recliner on an integrated seat must have "continuous engagement" to comply with the safety standards.

In the December 23 letter, I explained that NHTSA may choose to test a seat in any of the range of possible reclined positions. However, this does not require "continuous engagement." If a seat has specific adjustment positions, and is released or unloc ked to move between those positions, NHTSA would not test the seat between adjustment positions.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.