ID: nht70-1.43

DATE: 02/25/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. C. Turner; NHTSA

TO: FWD Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: RE: PETITION FOR RULEMAKING

This is in reply to your letter of October 16, 1969, requesting an exception from Paragraph S3.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 ("Glazing Materials - Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Motorcycles, Trucks and Buses"), to allow the use of Lemen and Plexiglas in certain specified locations in twenty-one (21) fire fighting vehicles to be delivered to the city of New York.

You state the purpose of your request is to provide better protection for occupants of these fire fighting vehicles from objects thrown at them when, for example, the vehicles are enroute to a fire. Further, you state the use of these materials would eliminate replacing safety glass, which can be broken when hit by small objects. Because you are requesting a change in an existing standard your letter has been treated as a petition for rulemaking to amend Standard No. 205, pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR @@ 353.31, 353.33. For the reasons stated below, your petition is denied.

It is not completely clear from your letter and the enclosed drawing where the interior or canopy partitions in which you wish to use Lexen and Plexiglas are located. Standard No. 205 presently permits the use of rigid plastics in interior partitions of fire fighting vehicles if these materials meet the requirements for plastics designated AS4 and AS5 (the latter can only be used when not requisite for driving visibility) in American Standards Association Test Z26.1-1966, July 15, 1966. We understand that Plexiglas meets these requirements and may therefore be used in this location. We also understand, however, that Lexen does not, failing specifically to meet certain chemical and abrasion resistance requirements applicable to AS4 and AS5 rigid plastics under the Standard. If our understanding regarding Lexen is correct, we believe its failure to meet these minimum requirements renders its unsuitable for use in areas of motor vehicles where a possible loss of transparency may affect the safe operation of the vehicle.

With reference to glazing in side and door windows of fire fighting vehicles, Standard No. 205 allows the use of glazing specified AS1, AS2, and AS10 in ASA Test-226.1-1966 and also allows the use of AS11 and AS3 glazing at levels not requisite for driving visibility. This glazing may be either laminated, tempered, or bullet resistant safety glass meeting the applicable requirements. Plastics meeting AS4 and AS5 requirements, while appropriate for certain locations such as partitions, are not considered appropriate for use in side and door windows as they do not possess chemical and abrasion resistance qualities necessary for exterior glazing and which the types of safety glass specified above possess. The occupant protection which you desire can be provided by using AS10 (and AS11 where appropriate) bullet resistant glass which contains both structural advantages over normally used safety glazing and satisfactory chemical and abrasion resistance for use in side and door windows.

ID: nht68-1.39

DATE: 02/20/68

FROM: H. S. BEAGLE -- ELECTRICAL TESTING LABORATORIES, INC.

TO: EDWIN L. SLAGLE -- NATIONAL HIGHWAY SAFETY BUREAU FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

COPYEE: J. R. SCHAEFFER -- ETL; A. R. CHICK -- ETL

TITLE: MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 205 -GLAZING MATERIALS

REF.1: ELECTRICALLY HEATED SAFETY GLASS FOR DEFOGGING

REF.2: TEST PROCEDURE PER USA STANDARD 226.1-1966

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 2/21/68 FROM EDWIN L. SLAGLE OF D.O.T. NATIONAL HIGHWAY SAFETY BUREAU TO H. S. BEAGLE OF ELECTRICAL TESTING LABORATORIES INC.

TEXT: The above subject reference No. 2 provides, in part, that safety glazing material be tested for regular (parallel) luminous transmittance (method unspecified), which value shall be not less than 70 per cent both before and after irradiation (ultraviolet are exposure). The word "parallel" means that the light beam used in making this measurement should be essentially collimated. This condition may be obtained by using a light source sufficiently distant from the test specimen that the rays are essentially parallel.

Our photometric laboratory has been performing this test satisfactorily for many years, using the apparatus shown in the attached photographs numbered 1 through 4, as follows:

Photo #1 - A general view, no glass in place, showing diaphragm plate and source of collimated beam above. Light source, positioned 48 inches above photo cell and shielded, is an incandescent monoplane tungsten-filament lamp calibrated for operation at the specified color temperature of 2854 degrees Kelvin.

#2 - Close up of diaphragm plate with 1-1/4-inch opening, positioned 3/4 inch above the color corrected photovoltaic cell. Cell is visible through diaphragm opening.

#3 - Set-up with glass specimen in place. Glass specimen shown has electrically conductive lines on one surface.

#4 - Close up of glass specimen on diaphragm plate.

In performing this measurement the test specimen is moved laterally across the diaphragm (aperture) to find and record the minimum transmittance value.

2

It is our belief that this test method is as suitable for evaluating the luminous transmittance of electrically heated safety glass as it is for the same glass not so treated. As a matter of fact, it has been so employed in the past with respect to imported glass of the electrically heated type.

However, to avoid possible future problems concerning the acceptability of our test method, we are submitting this matter for your consideration at this time. The urgency of it is related to the long loud time with respect to production of electrically heated safety glass to provide for defogging of rear windows in motor vehicles.

We therefore respectfully ask for your written approval of the test method, as herein described, as being acceptable for purposes of evaluating the luminous transmittance of electrically heated safety glass for compliance in this regard, with the requirements of MVSS No. 205.

The earliest possible response to this request would be most sincerely appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

Enclosure: photographs

ID: nht90-2.20

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 20, 1990

FROM: Wayne Brush -- Director, Material Management, Conceptor Industries, Inc.

TO: Clive Van Orden, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-25-90 to W. Brush from P. J. Rice; signature by S. P. Wood

TEXT:

Conceptor Industries Inc. ("Conceptor"), a subsidiary of Magna International Inc., in conjunction with the Electric Vehicle Development Corporation, the Electric Power Research Institute and several U.S. Electric Utilities is modifying General Motors Van s to produce electric powered vehicles for sale into the United States and Canada.

In January 1989, Conceptor made an application for a temporary exemption from three Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. This exemption was subsequently granted in November 1989 (Docket No. EX 89-2; Notice 2) with an expiry date of November 1, 1990. Conceptor has completed its testing program and concluded that the vehicle meets paragraphs S5.1.1.3, S5.1.2, and S5.1.3 of 49 CFR 571.105 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105 Hydraulic Brake Systems, 49 CFR 571.124 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 12 4 Accelerator Control Systems, and paragraphs S6.2/S6.4, and S6.3/S6.4 of 49 CFR 571.301 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301 Fuel System Integrity.

The purpose of this letter is to seek your assistance in resolving a difficult administrative problem for both General Motors and Conceptor concerning the assignment of the vehicle identification number for the electric van. Both companies are aware tha t the vehicle may not fit the current definition of an incomplete vehicle as described in Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 568 (49 CFR 568) due to the fact that the shell as manufactured by General Motors lacks a power train. However, the shel l does have the other minimum requirements, i.e. a frame and chassis structure, steering system, suspension system and braking system. Due to this variance from the definition your department has indicated that Conceptor must assign the VIN. While Conce ptor is prepared to do this, use of a VIN to that is to a large extent different than that used by General Motors causes serious administrative difficulties in terms of tracking warranty, safety recall campaigns, etc. With this in mind, General Motors h as suggested that Conceptor use a VIN while it uses the GM world manufacturer identifier, check digit, model, year and production sequence codes, has a unique vehicle description code placing an "X" as the engine type code. An example of the proposed VI N is shown below:

2GKGG35X1K4528366

I would appreciate your thoughts on whether this approach is acceptable to NHTSA and if so, some guidance on how to secure the necessary approval. Early resolution of this matter is very important to us as we hope to be in production on July 9, 1990.

I will contact your office early next week to set up a convenient time to meet and discuss this issue.

ID: nht92-6.4

DATE: June 17, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Steven Rovtar -- General Manager, Blazer International Corp.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/28/92 from Steven Rovtar to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7353)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of May 28, 1992, asking for "a written ruling" that the product you described "meets current SAE/DOT guidelines."

The product is intended for the vehicle towing trailer market. Currently, lamps on towed vehicles are activated by splicing into the wiring harness of the towing vehicle. Your product eliminates the need for this type of hard wiring. This product "utilizes photodetectors to read the output of the towing vehicle's stop and turn signal lamps, and in turn activate the lamps of the towed vehicle." Photodetectors are embedded in suction cups which are attached to the towing vehicle's stop and turn signal lamps. The device is plugged into the cigarette lighter receptacle of the towing vehicle, and the harness of the towed vehicle is plugged into the device. When the stop lamp or turn signals of the towing vehicle are activated, the photodetectors read the light emitted, and the towed vehicle's lamps are activated via the completed circuit.

For purposes of this discussion we shall assume that the device is intended for aftermarket distribution. Further, from your description, it appears to be the type of device that is simple enough to be installed by the vehicle owner. The product itself is not directly regulated by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, because it is not replacement equipment intended to replace original equipment. Its installation on a vehicle in use by the vehicle's owner is outside the prohibition contained in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. That prohibition forbids "manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses" from "rendering inoperative, in whole or in part," mandated safety equipment such as stop lamps and turn signal lamps.

Were the device installed by a person in these categories we would be concerned that the addition of the suction cups would partially obscure the original equipment stop and turn signal lamps and, thus, render them "partially inoperative" within the meaning of the prohibition. That concern is not lessened by the fact that the device may be installed by a person not covered by the prohibition, such as the owner of the towing vehicle. However, as a practical matter, we realize that the safety impact may be minimal since the presence of the trailer will obscure the lamps on the towing vehicle to which the suction cups are applied.

We cannot advise you on whether the product meets SAE requirements. The legality of the use of equipment that is not regulated by NHTSA is determinable under the laws of States where the towing-towed vehicle combinations are operated. We are unable to advise you on these laws, and suggest that you write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Washington

Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203, for an opinion.

ID: 16206.drn

Mr. George J. Aumond
President
Intec Industries, Inc.
1025 S. Linwood Ave.
Santa Ana, CA 92705

Dear Mr. Aumond:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether your company must assign new vehicle identification numbers (VINs) to used trailer chassis, under the facts described in your letter. If the trailers are modified in accordance with NHTSA's regulations on combining new and used components in trailer manufacture, the trailers would be considered used and the VIN assigned to each trailer may be retained.

Your letter states that Intec Industries is in the process of redesigning 40-foot shipping container chassis to "accommodate new laws pertaining to distribution of weight on bridges." You describe the changes as follows:

The modification is accomplished by modifying an existing 40' straight frame chassis, to accommodate one 20' container, with a 48,000 pound load, or, two empty 20' containers, or one 40' or 45' container with 48,000 pound loads. When completed, only the rear 10' of the 40' frame is not used. The compressed length of finished unit is 30'-0". All braking systems, wheels, tires, accumulation tanks, and fifth wheel components, are essentially left intact, and are incorporated into the new design.

In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated that if possible, your company would like to retain the assigned VIN on the modified trailers. You further stated that after the changes are made, the gross vehicle weight rating and the gross axle weight ratings of each trailer chassis will remain the same. The distance between the wheels (on the same side of the vehicle) will be adjusted, so that the trailer chassis' load distribution will be in line with new bridge weight requirements.

NHTSA's regulations at 49 CFR 571.7(f) Combining new and used components in trailer manufacture apply to your company's trailer modifications. That regulation provides:

When new materials are used in the assembly of a trailer, the trailer will be considered newly manufactured for purposes of [the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards] unless, at the minimum, the trailer running gear assembly (axle(s), wheels, braking and suspension) is not new, and was taken from an existing trailer -

(1) Whose identity is continued in the reassembled vehicle with respect to the Vehicle Identification Number; and

(2) That is owned or leased by the user of the reassembled vehicle.

Thus, if the trailers are modified under the conditions described in Section 571.7(f), the trailers would be considered used, and Intec Industries may continue to use the assigned VINs on the modified trailers.

Please note that in the modification process, your company must ensure that the certification labels (assigned pursuant to 49 CFR Part 567 Certification) remain on the trailers. Additionally, in order to avoid a violation of 49 U.S.C. 30112(b), when modifying the trailers, your company must not "knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in [those vehicles] in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard..."

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:565#567
d.2/26/98

ID: 17341.wkm

Mr. Richard H. Allen
Chief Engineer
Eagle Iron Works
129 Holcomb Avenue
Post Office Box 934
Des Moines, IA 50304-0934

Dear Mr. Allen:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter to this office in which you asked whether the processing equipment that your company produces for the aggregate industry is excluded from the antilock brake system (ABS) requirement of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) No. 121, Air brake systems. The answer is yes.

You stated that some of the equipment that you manufacture is wheel-mounted for ease of transport from the factory to the customer and by the customer between job sites as required. You explained that the equipment is not load-carrying since the equipment is the load. You stated that the equipment was designed to spend its entire life at mining or quarry sites and would probably spend less than one percent of its life on the road. You enclosed brochures depicting and describing the various lines of equipment that you manufacture, specifically alluding to your wheel-mounted portable Sand Washing-Classifying machine, wheel-mounted portable Sand Washer-Classifier-Dehydrator, and your portable wheel-mounted Log Washers.

Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code (hereinafter Safety Act) authorizes this agency to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act defines "motor vehicle" as:

[A] vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.

49 U.S.Code 30102(a)(6).

In reviewing the information you provided, including your brochures, it is our opinion that the aggregate equipment that you described and as depicted in your brochures are not motor vehicles within the statutory definition. They are obviously designed to be used primarily off-road and although they are portable and therefore capable of being transported on-road from the factory to the customer and by the customer from one job site to another, their on-road use is only incidental and not the primary purpose for which the equipment was manufactured. Not being motor vehicles, therefore, your wheel-mounted items of equipment, such as your Sand Washing-Classifying machines, Sand Washer-Classifier-Dehydrators, and Log Washers are not required to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including Standard No. 121.

Standard No. 121 (copy enclosed), requires trailers, among other vehicles, equipped with air brake systems to be equipped with ABS. Excluded from that requirement, however, is

Any trailer that has an unloaded vehicle weight which is not less than 95 percent of its GVWR.

49 CFR 571.121, paragraph S3(f).

Your information would indicate that the equipment in question would also meet this exclusion since, as mentioned above, the equipment is the load. Accordingly, even if your equipment were considered motor vehicles, they would still be excluded from the ABS requirement under this provision.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:121#VSA
d.6/1/98

ID: 12414.ZTV

Mr. Art Maison
Purchasing Manager
Redneck, Inc.
2100 N. West By-Pass
Springfield, MO 66803

Dear Mr. Maison:

This replies to your letter of August 30, 1996, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for an interpretation of the conspicuity requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You write that "the by-laws read that DOT-C is for the vehicles and trailers under 25,999 pounds require for that class. We would like to use these reflectors also for the DOT- C2, for the use on vehicles and trailers over 26,000 pounds."

We do not know the "by-law" to which you refer. Paragraph S5.7 of Standard No. 108 applies to all trailers of 80 or more inches overall width, and with a GVWR over 10,000 pounds. It does not distinguish between those over and under 26,000 pounds. Therefore, a trailer with a GVWR of 26,000 pounds must meet the same requirements of paragraph S5.7 as a trailer with a GVWR of 10,001 pounds.

We understand that you have discussed your problem with Pat Boyd, one of this agency's rulemaking engineers, and that your questions are: "What is the difference between DOT-C and DOT C-2" and "Does a reflex reflector have to be 2 inches wide, like reflective tape?"

Paragraph S5.7 permits a manufacturer to choose either reflex reflectors or reflective tape as the way to conform to the conspicuity requirements of Standard No. 108. "DOT-C" is the marking required for reflex reflectors, and is the reflector manufacturer's certification that the reflectors meet Standard No. 108 (Paragraph S5.7.2.3). "DOT- C2" is the marking required for reflective tape which has a width of not less than 50 mm (2 inches) and is the reflective tape manufacturer's certification that the tape meets Standard No. 108 (Paragraphs S5.7.1.3(d) and S5.7.1.5). Standard No. 108 does not require that reflex reflectors have a minimum width. Reflex reflectors are rated by the total light return per reflector, but reflective tape is rated by the light return per unit area. Standard No. 108 requires that one reflex reflector, meeting the DOT-C specification, have the same total light return as 100 mm of reflective tape meeting the DOT-C2 specification. We have seen reflex reflector bars 300 mm long certified to meet the DOT-C specification for each 100 mm segment. Standard No. 108 permits the use of these products even though they are only about 1 inch wide because they provide the same photometric performance as 300 mm of DOT -C2 reflective tape. I enclose a copy of the recent final rule which extended these requirements to truck tractors, and have circled language on p. 41357 which mentions this point.

I hope that this is responsive to your request. If you have any further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson at 202-366-5263.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:108

d:9/25/96

ID: 14119.drn

Ms. Jo. Campfield
Vice President
Ultra Bond Licensing Corporation
2458 I-70 Business Loop, Ste. B-1
Grand Junction, CO 81501

Dear Ms. Campfield:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of this agency's laws that apply to your new product, EDGEGUARD, a clear material that is placed on the outer three inches or less of a windshield perimeter to prevent cracks. I apologize for the delay in responding.

As you are aware from past correspondence, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to regulate the manufacture of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has promulgated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for motor vehicle glazing. For windshields, Standard No. 205 specifies minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent) and light stability; resistance to abrasion, delamination (humidity and boil tests), impact and penetration; and maximum levels of optical deviation and distortion. The various tests and criteria are contained in ANSI/SAE Z26.1, which is incorporated by reference in Standard No. 205.

NHTSA has stated in past interpretation letters that films such as the type your letter describes are not glazing materials themselves, and would not have to meet Standard No. 205. However, depending on who installs the glazing, installation of such films on new motor vehicles may be prohibited if, after installation, the vehicle glazing no longer meets the requirements of Standard No. 205, such as those for light transmittance, abrasion resistance and optical distortion.

A vehicle manufacturer or dealer placing your film on glazing in a new vehicle prior to sale of the vehicle must certify that the glazing continues to meet Standard No. 205. 49 U.S.C. Section 30112(a) prohibits any person from manufacturing for sale, offering for sale or selling any motor vehicle or equipment that fails to comply with applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 205. After the vehicle has been sold to the first purchaser, the owner may modify the vehicle as he or she pleases, subject to State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner could install your product on the vehicle whether or not such installation adversely affects the light transmittance and other properties of the vehicle's glazing. However, we urge consumers not to degrade the safety of their vehicles.

49 U.S.C. Section 30122(b) provides that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business "may not knowingly make inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. "Make inoperative" means to remove, disconnect or degrade the performance of a system or element of design installed pursuant to the FMVSSs. Thus, none of these persons may knowingly install your film on a vehicle for its owner if the installation would make inoperative the light transmittance or abrasion resistance of the vehicle glazing. Violations of this section may result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,100 for each violation.

Because State law may affect the installation of your product on owners' vehicles, you should check the law in the States where you believe your product may be sold or installed for any applicable requirements.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:205
d.7/3/97

ID: 1983-1.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/07/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Stanley Electric Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 23, 1982, to Mr. Elliott of this agency asking whether you may distinguish between U.S. and Japanese-manufactured lighting equipment subject to Federal Standard No. 108 by marking the lenses "U.S.A. DOT" and "JAPAN DOT", rspectively.

As you know, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has not adopted the SAE standard on equipment marking, J759c. This means that the only marking subject to Standard No. 108 is that which certifies compliance to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, the DOT symbol. We believe that the intended proximity of the words "Japan DOT" in your Japanese-manufactured equipment might create the impression that Stanley was certifying compliance to the requirements of the Japanese Ministry of Transport, rather than to those of the U.S. Department of Transportation. Therefore, we suggest that you place the word "Japan" at the end of the line rather than adjacent to the "DOT" symbol.

SINCERELY,

STANLEY ELECTRIC CO., LTD.

November 23, 1982

Att.: Marx Elliott Office of Rulemaking

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Elliott,

We, Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. corporated in Japan (hereafter reffered to as STANLEY-JPN) have estblished Stanley Electric U.S. Co., Inc. corporated in London, Ohio (hereafter reffered to as STANLEY-US) with 100 % investments, and we are in process of preparing to start producing, beginning with the lighting equipments for 1984 model vehicles.

In the work we are proceeding, we are faced with a problem, the first case for us, which relates to the identification marking to be indicated on the lighting devices. So, we would like to ask you whether or not our view is right.

Honda Motor Co., LTD. (Japan) will manufacture the same type of vehicles both in Japan and in U.S.A (HONDA OF AMERICA). Therefore, their lighting devices of the same design will be manufactured by STANLEY-JPN and by STANLEY-US, and supplied to the Honda plant in each area.

Because these lighting devices are of the same design (STANLEY-JPN keeps the original drawings. And only STANLEY-JPN takes proceedings for their modifications.), we intend to indicate the same indentification making to the products made in Japan and made in U. S. A. However, in order to make a country of origin clear, it is our intention to add the marking "JAPAN" or U.S.A." to the identification marking, though it is not explained in Lighting Identification Code-SAE J759c.

The following is an example:

For products made in Japan : "STANLEY 043-6371 SAE AIST 80 JAPAN DOT"

For products made in U.S.A.: "STANLEY 043-6371 SAE AIST 80 U.S.A. DOT"

Please let us know whether or not the above view has no problem.

Thanking you in advance,

H. Miyazawa Director, Automotive Lighting Engineering Dept.

ID: 10228

The Honorable Bart Stupak
U.S. House of Representatives
902 Ludington St.
Escanaba, MI 49829

Dear Mr. Stupak:

Thank you for your letter enclosing correspondence from your constituent, Mr. Kurt B. Ries, concerning our requirements for school vehicles. Your letter was referred to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for reply, since NHTSA regulates the manufacture of all vehicles, including vans and school buses.

Mr. Ries, Director of the Northeast Michigan Consortium, asks for relief from what he believes is a new Federal regulation. The Northeast Michigan Consortium uses a number of 15-passenger vans to transport students to employment training programs and jobs. Mr. Ries believes the new Federal regulation will require all vehicles transporting students, including vans, to be replaced with "mini-school buses," which he believes is economically unfeasible.

I appreciate this opportunity to address your constituent's concerns. As explained below, the new regulation that Mr. Ries is concerned about is not a Federal regulation, but one that Michigan is considering adopting as State law.

NHTSA has issued safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles, including school buses. Under our regulations, a "school bus" is a vehicle carrying 11 or more persons, that is sold to transport children to school or school-related events. Congress has directed NHTSA to require school bus manufacturers to meet safety standards on aspects of school bus safety, including floor strength, seating systems, and crashworthiness. Each seller of a new school bus must ensure that the vehicle is certified as meeting these safety standards.

While NHTSA regulates the manufacture and sale of new school buses, this agency does not regulate the use of vehicles. Thus, we do not have a present or pending requirement that would require Mr. Ries to cease using his vans for school transportation.

The requirements for the use of school buses and other vehicles are matters for each State to decide. We understand from Mr. Roger Lynas, the State Pupil Transportation Director in Michigan, that Michigan is considering changing its school bus definition to make it more similar to NHTSA's. Such an amendment could affect what vehicles can be used for school transportation under State law. For more information about Michigan's proposed amendment, we suggest Mr. Ries contact Mr. Lynas at (517) 373-4013.

NHTSA does not require States to permit only the use of "school buses" when buses are used for school transportation. However, we support State decisions to do so. NHTSA provides recommendations for the States on various operational aspects of school bus and pupil transportation safety programs, in the form of Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, "Pupil Transportation Safety," copy enclosed. Since school buses have special safety features that conventional buses do not have, such as padded, high-backed seats, protected fuel tanks, and warning lights and stop arms, they are the safest means to transport school children. Guideline 17 recommends that all buses regularly used for student transportation meet our school bus safety standards. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Carol Stroebel Director of Intergovernmental Affairs

Enclosure ref:571 d:9/26/95