ID: nht94-7.26

DATE: March 24, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Bob Carver -- Product Engineering, Wayne Wheeled Vehicles (Marysville, OH)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/8/94 from Bob Carver to John Womack (OCC 9544)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of January 8, 1994, asking two questions concerning a recent amendment to Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (57 FR 49413; November 2, 1992). Your questions and the response to each follow.

1. There's some confusion here in our engineering department regarding the interpretation of the "Daylight Opening" and "Unobstructed Opening" as it applies to the new side emergency door specification in FMVSS 217. Page 2 shows the allowable obstruction and the context in which "Daylight Opening" and "Unobstructed Opening" are used. Page 3 shows some measurements of our seats placed according to the "30 cm minimum" shown on page 2. Page 4 shows four different interpretations of the "Unobstructed Opening" area. Depending on the interpretation, between 9 and 15 people may be accommodated by a side emergency door. My question is this: of the four possibilities shown, which definition of the "Unobstructed Opening" area is correct? Mr. Hott indicated definition 4.

The term "daylight opening" is defined in the Final Rule as "the maximum unobstructed opening of an emergency exit when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the plane of the opening." An obstruction in this context would include any obstacle or object that would block, obscure, or interfere with, in any way, access to that exit when opened. In determining the "maximum unobstructed opening of an emergency exit," we would subtract, from the total area of the opening, the area of any portions of the opening that cannot be used for exit purposes as a result of the obstruction. The area measurements would be taken when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the plane of the opening.

Your question specifically concerns how the "maximum unobstructed opening" of a side door is measured when the opening is partially obstructed by a seat. In the case of the illustrated door exit, occupants would use the exit by movement along the floor. This would be considered in determining the extent of an obstruction. None of the four examples you enclosed with your letter correctly illustrates the area that would be credited for the illustrated exit. The following regions would not be credited for this exit: (1) the area visually obstructed by the seat; (2) your region A 2, an area bounded by a horizontal line tangent to the top of the seat back, a vertical line tangent to the rearmost portion of the top of the seat, the upper edge of the door opening, and the edge of the door forward of the seat; (3) your region A 5, an area bounded by the seat back, a horizontal line tangent to the top of the seat back, and the edge of the door forward of the seat; and (4) your region A 8, an area bounded by the seat leg, the floor, the lower edge of the seat bottom, and the edge of the door forward of the seat. Because the seat would make the last three regions unusable as exit space for a person traveling along the floor of the bus towards the exit, they would not be credited for that exit.

You should be aware that the agency published a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend Standard No. 217 on December 1, 1993 (58 FR 63321). The notice proposed two alternate means for determining the maximum amount of area that will be credited for all types of emergency exits on school buses. The agency is currently reviewing the comments received in response to this notice. I am enclosing a copy of this notice.

2. Here is an excerpt from FMVSS 217 S5.5.3(a):

"Each school bus ....shall have the designation "Emergency Door" or "Emergency Exit" as appropriate, .... For emergency exit doors, the designation shall be located at the top of, or directly above, the emergency exit door on both the inside and outside surfaces of the bus.... For emergency window exits, the designation shall be located at the top of, or directly above, or at the bottom of the emergency window exit on both the inside and outside surfaces of the bus."

I've seen a two-sided sticker used by other bus manufacturers. It is applied on the inside surface of a window and the same image "Emergency Door" or "Emergency Exit" can be read from both inside and outside the bus. Is it permissible for us to use this sort of decal, assuming it meets all other (i.e., FMVSS 302)?

The answer to your question is yes. The agency addressed this issue in an October 2, 1978, letter to Mr. E.M. Ryan of Ward Industries, Inc. I am enclosing a copy of this letter.

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

ID: nht94-7.32

DATE: March 21, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Lawrence P. White -- Acting Director, Bureau of Motor Vehicles, Dept. of Transportation, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/13/93 from Lawrence P. White to Mary Versie (OCC-9479)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of December 13, 1993, asking several questions concerning a recent amendment to Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (57 FR 49413; November 2, 1992). Your questions and the response to each follows.

1. The effective date - is it the chassis manufacturer's date of completion, the final stage manufacturer's date of completion, or somewhere in between?

The effective date for the November 2 final rule is May 2, 1994. Only vehicles manufactured on or after the effective date of an applicable requirement in a Federal motor vehicle safety standard must comply with that requirement. If a vehicle is manufactured in two or more stages, the final stage manufacturer is required to certify that the vehicle complies with "the standards in effect on the date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle, the date of final completion, or a date between those two dates." (49 CFR Part S568.6).

2. Based on the formula for emergency exit space, is the area of the front service door to be included? Does this mean on a vehicle of 60 to 77 passengers, the only additional requirements beyond the front and rear doors is a left side exit door?

The November 2 final rule requires additional emergency exit area (AEEA) for some buses. The amount, if any, of AEEA which must be provided is determined by subtracting the area of the front service door and either the area of the rear emergency door or the area of the side emergency door and the rear push-out window, depending on the configuration of the bus (S5.2.3.1). These are the minimum exits required on all buses. If AEEA is required, the first additional exit which must be installed is a left side emergency door (for a bus with a rear emergency door) or a right side emergency door (for a bus with a left side emergency door and a rear push- out window). The number of exits may vary for buses which carry the same number of passengers, because the amount of area credited for each exit is the area of daylight opening, and because different variations of types of exits are possible. However, in the regulatory evaluation for the final rule, the agency estimated that a bus would not be required to have a roof exit (the second type of additional exit required) unless the capacity was greater than 62 (for a bus with a rear emergency door) or 77 (for a bus with a left side emergency door and a rear push-out window).

3. The "clear aisle space" required for exit to the proposed side

emergency door, according to federal specifications, can be met with a flip-up type seat or a clear opening of 12", as measured from the back of the door forward. Are there any specifications, definitions, or descriptions provided as to what would be considered a "flip seat"?

The November 2 final rule allowed a flip-up seat to be adjacent to a side emergency exit door "if the seat bottom pivots and automatically assumes and retains a vertical position when not in use, so that no portion of the seat bottom is within" the required 12 inch aisle to the exit (S5.4.2.1(a)(2)(ii)). The agency did not otherwise define a flip-up seat, nor did it include any performance requirements for these seats.

4. Also, there is concern regarding school buses that are equipped with the "flip seat" by the emergency door opening and the possibility of school children, either intentionally or accidently, unlatching the door latch mechanism. Are the door latch mechanisms to be equipped to help prevent this from occurring?

Standard No. 217 includes requirements for the type of motion and force required to release an emergency exit (S5.3.3). One of these requirements is that the notion to release a door must be upward from inside the bus (upward or pull-type for school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kilograms or less). This is intended to lessen the chance of a door accidently being opened, without unnecessarily making the exit more complicated to open in an emergency. In addition, warning alarms are required for door and window exits to notify the driver that the exit has been opened.

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

ID: nht94-9.6

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 10, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: C.N. Littler -- Coordinator, Regulatory Affairs, MCI/TMC (Manitoba)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to fax dated 7/30/93 from C.N. (Norm) Littler to Mary Versailles (OCC 8951)

TEXT:

This responds to your FAX and phone call of July 30, 1993 to Mary Versailles of my office. Your FAX enclosed information on a vehicle, the AMF Invader, which is built on a remanufactured MCI chassis, and advertised and sold as a new vehicle. You do not believe that such a vehicle should be considered a new vehicle. As Ms. Versailles explained on the phone, we can explain whether such a vehicle would be considered a new vehicle for purposes of laws and regulations administered by this agency, and the implications of such a determination. I suggest you also contact the Federal Trade Commission concerning whether it is appropriate to advertise this vehicle as new. To determine whether this vehicle can be titled and registered as new, you would have to contact the various states concerning their laws.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 et seq.; Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor does it endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a self-certification process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

After a vehicle's first retail sale, a provision affecting its modification is section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) which provides:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, andy device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

It is possible that modifications on an existing vehicle may be so substantial that the resulting vehicle would be a new vehicle for purposes of compliance with the safety standards. In this case, the new vehicle would be required to be certified by its manufacturer as complying with all applicable safety standards in effect on its date of manufacture, just like every other new vehicle. This date would be the date such modifications were completed.

The agency has stated that a bus built with a new body is not considered a "new" vehicle if, at a minimum, the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) are not new and at least two of these three listed components are taken from the same used vehicle (see, for example, August 11, 1987 letter to Mr. Ernest Farmer). The agency has also stated that a bus constructed from an old body and a new chassis is a new vehicle (see, for example, July 17, 1981 letter to Mr. Larry Louderback). When neither the body nor the chassis are completely new, the agency looks to see if the vehicle has so deviated from the original components and attributes that it may be considered an new vehicle, and one for which compliance with the safety standards is legally required, or whether it has retained a sufficient number of components and characteristics to be considered a used vehicle (see, for example, April 22, 1991 letter to Mr. Kent Morris).

You enclosed an article titled "The New Invader" from the August 1993 issue of National Bus Trader magazine. The manufacturing process for the Invader is described beginning on page 14. Page 16 of this article states, "the Invader is supplied with a new engine," but the article does not contain enough information to determine whether the vehicle, which includes both new and old parts, would be considered new. If the Invader has a new body, NHTSA would consider the vehicle to be new if the chassis lacks the used components referenced in the Farmer letter. Any new vehicle must be certified as complying with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture before the vehicle can be sold in the United States.

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

ID: nht93-2.13

DATE: 03/11/93

FROM: JOHN WOMACK -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: THOMAS L. WRIGHT -- COORDINATOR, TECHNICAL SUPPORT UNIT, STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY, DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-29-92 FROM THOMAS L. WRIGHT TO PATRICK BOYD (OCC 8210)

TEXT: This responds to your letter to Patrick Boyd of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, concerning window tinting. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply.

Your questions relate to a January 22, 1992 (57 FR 2496) notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on the tinting requirements of Safety Standard No. 205, "Glazing Materials." You ask about the status of the NPRM. The agency received a large number of comments on this rulemaking. We have reviewed the comments and are analyzing the issues raised in this rulemaking.

You also ask about a statement in the NPRM about Federal preemption of state window tinting laws. You ask whether Federal law preempts a state law that permits add-on window tinting material for medical or aesthetic reasons.

As explained below, the answer is no, provided that the state law regulates conduct other than that regulated by Federal law. Your question was addressed in the NPRM's discussion of the Federalism implications of the proposed rule (p. 2507).

By way of background, NHTSA issued Standard 205 under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The standard currently imposes a minimum level of light transmittance of 70% in all areas requisite for driving visibility (which includes all windows on passenger cars). The primary purpose of this requirement is to ensure adequate visibility through the windows, thereby reducing the risk of a motor vehicle crash.

Section 103(d) of the Safety Act provides that:

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard.

Whether state law is preempted under @ 103(d) depends in part on the conduct that is regulated by that law. Federal safety standards regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. State law would be preempted to the extent it established performance requirements applicable to the manufacture of vehicles or glazing that differ from those in Standard 205. State law would also be preempted if it purported to allow the manufacture or sale of glazing materials or new vehicles containing glazing material that did not meet the specifications of Standard 205.

Federal law also regulates modifications made to new and used vehicles by motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

The effect of this is to impose limits on the tinting practices of businesses listed in @ 108(a)(2)(A). These businesses may not install tinting on new or used vehicles that reduces the light transmittance of windows covered by Standard 205 to a level below the Federal requirement of 70 percent. A state law would be preempted if it purported to allow modifications violating Standard 205 by these named businesses. Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to actions by individual vehicle owners.

Because Federal safety standards regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, state requirements applicable to the registration and inspection of motor vehicles after the first sale to a consumer are not preempted merely because they are not identical to the Federal safety standards, as long as they do not interfere with the achievement of the purposes of Federal law. Therefore, a state could permit the registration of a vehicle which had been altered by its owner by the addition of window tinting, even when the tinting reduces the light transmittance below the Federal standard. However, the state cannot legitimize conduct - the rendering inoperative of glazing by commercial businesses installing window tinting - that is illegal under Federal law.

I have enclosed a copy of the Report to Congress on Tinting of Motor Vehicle Windows which you requested. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht93-8.10

DATE: November 15, 1993

FROM: Richard L. Plath --Selecto-Flash, Inc.

TO: Taylor Vinson -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/30/93 from John Womack to Richard L. Plath (A41; Std. 108)

TEXT:

I know that Jim Peepas from our company has contacted you concerning the conspicuity program. I am responsible for sales for Selecto Flash and thought I would share with you some of the concerns of the various manufacturer's.

In our discussions with the trailer and container manufacturer's who supply this equipment, there seems to be differences of opinion as to the actual requirements. For this reason I will outline the procedure as we understand it and will further ask for confirmation on several issues set forth within this letter.

1) A chassis for purposes of the conspicuity requirement shall be considered to be a trailer.

2) That the total length of the chassis shall be used in computing the 50 per cent coverage of high intensity reflective for each individual side.

3) In the case of a forty eight foot chassis, the law will thus require a minimum of 24 feet of the approved reflective sheeting to be applied to each side. Further, there shall not be more than 18 inches of either red or silver reflective in a continuous strip and that there shall not be an allowed void of more than 48 inches between modules.

4) It shall be recognized that a chassis may travel both with and without a container. In the case of a gooseneck chassis, the gooseneck portion is not visible when the chassis is loaded with a container. The gooseneck portion is generally about 8 feet in length. When the chassis is not loaded with a container, the application of 24 feet per side of a 48 foot chassis of evenly spaced reflective modules would comply with the law as we understand it. It would identify the extreme front and rear portions of the chassis.

The confusion is the treatment of the same gooseneck chassis that is loaded with a container. It is our understanding that the requirements now are for the entire 24 feet (50 per cent of length) to be applied behind the gooseneck. In general this would mean that the rear 40 foot portion of the chassis would contain the 24 feet of reflective modules. Further, we understand that the 50 per cent requirement would be satisfied and that additional modules would not have to be applied to the gooseneck.

If our interpretation is correct, then the gooseneck chassis illustrated above would be in violation if traveling without benefit of a container.

The eight foot gooseneck would be dangerously unmarked creating a hazard and would violate the requirement stating that a void of no more than four

feet is allowable. It is our feeling that since the chassis travels both loaded and unloaded, if the reflective modules were applied evenly spaced along the total length, that the spirit of the law would be realized. Is there a benefit in applying the additional 4 feet of reflective within the rear 40 foot portion of the chassis? If a chassis is considered to be a trailer for purposes of the conspicuity law, then the evenly spaced treatment would seem to be more consistent.

We would appreciate a confirmation from your office indicating the legal application of the law as it pertains to gooseneck chassis.

1) Will we need to apply 24 feet of stripping on a forty eight foot chassis behind the gooseneck plus an additional 4 feet on the gooseneck?

2) Since a chassis is considered to be treated as a trailer, shouldn't we apply the 24 feet evenly spaced from the extreme rear and front portions of the chassis?

3) Is a tire considered a legal obstruction? If so, can we deduct the distance behind the tire from the 50 per cent coverage?

4) We anticipate that the slide mechanism on an extendable chassis will scrape the reflective film from off the chassis. Is the operator then subject to penalties? How will the operator be able to avoid these penalties since they have no control over this process?

We hope that you can respond to these questions well in advance of the December 1st deadline. The application process has already begun and the manufacturer's need to finalize the process.

ID: nht94-1.15

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 10, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: C.N. Littler -- Coordinator, Regulatory Affairs, MCI/TMC (Manitoba)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to fax dated 7/30/93 from C.N. (Norm) Littler to Mary Versailles (OCC 8951)

TEXT:

This responds to your FAX and phone call of July 30, 1993 to Mary Versailles of my office. Your FAX enclosed information on a vehicle, the AMF Invader, which is built on a remanufactured MCI chassis, and advertised and sold as a new vehicle. You do not believe that such a vehicle should be considered a new vehicle. As Ms. Versailles explained on the phone, we can explain whether such a vehicle would be considered a new vehicle for purposes of laws and regulations administered by this agency, and the implications of such a determination. I suggest you also contact the Federal Trade Commission concerning whether it is appropriate to advertise this vehicle as new. To determine whether this vehicle can be titled and registered as new, you would have t o contact the various states concerning their laws.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 et seq.; Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor does it endorse any comm ercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a self-certification process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

After a vehicle's first retail sale, a provision affecting its modification is section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) which provides:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, andy device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal m otor vehicle safety standard.

It is possible that modifications on an existing vehicle may be so substantial that the resulting vehicle would be a new vehicle for purposes of compliance with the safety standards. In this case, the new vehicle would be required to be certified by its manufacturer as complying with all applicable safety standards in effect on its date of manufacture, just like every other new vehicle. This date would be the date such modifications were completed.

The agency has stated that a bus built with a new body is not considered a "new" vehicle if, at a minimum, the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) are not new and at least two of these three listed components are taken from the same used vehicle (see , for example, August 11, 1987 letter to Mr. Ernest Farmer). The agency has also stated that a bus constructed from an old body and a new chassis is a new vehicle (see, for example, July 17, 1981 letter to Mr. Larry Louderback). When neither the body n or the chassis are completely new, the agency looks to see if the vehicle has so deviated from the original components and attributes that it may be considered an new vehicle, and one for which compliance with the safety standards is legally required, or whether it has retained a sufficient number of components and characteristics to be considered a used vehicle (see, for example, April 22, 1991 letter to Mr. Kent Morris).

You enclosed an article titled "The New Invader" from the August 1993 issue of National Bus Trader magazine. The manufacturing process for the Invader is described beginning on page 14. Page 16 of this article states, "the Invader is supplied with a ne w engine," but the article does not contain enough information to determine whether the vehicle, which includes both new and old parts, would be considered new. If the Invader has a new body, NHTSA would consider the vehicle to be new if the chassis lac ks the used components referenced in the Farmer letter. Any new vehicle must be certified as complying with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture before the vehicle can be sold in the United States.

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

ID: 77-5.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/12/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Mrs. Edward Foster

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your recent letter to President Carter concerning the installation of a bench seat in a cargo van was forwarded to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for reply. You were apparently told by your local Ford dealer that Federal law prohibits the installation of a seat in the cargo area of a van vehicle.

The Ford dealer's representation to you was incorrect. There is no Federal law that precludes installation of a seat such as your letter describes; although, depending on the time and manner of the installation, the seat might be subject to Federal safety standards.

If the vehicle manufacturer (Ford) or your dealer installs the seat prior to the time you take possession of the vehicle, either will have to certify that the vehicle, including the seat, is in compliance with all applicable safety standards, as provided in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.). Specifically, the installation of the seat would require compliance with Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and Safety Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Anchorages. If done by your dealer, he would be required to attach a label or tag to the vehicle certifying that, as altered, the vehicle was in compliance with all safety standards, including the three just mentioned (49 CFR 567.7).

If you first take possession of the vehicle, you or your dealer may then install an additional seat without certifying compliance with Federal safety standards (15 U.S.C. 1397). Your dealer would, however, be subject to section 108 (a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act, which provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This means that the dealer would not be permitted to destroy the vehicle's conformity to any safety standard by his installation of the additional seat. We do strongly recommend that, for the safety of your child, you assure the seat and safety belts conform to the minimum performance requirements of our safety standards.

Perhaps it is the policy of Ford Motor Company and its dealers not to install additional seats in cargo vans because of the responsibilities mentioned above. The policy is not, however, a Federal law. I suggest you show this letter to your local dealer.

SINCERELY,

President Jimmy Carter

Dear Mr. President:

My husband will be starting a new independent business within the next several weeks that requires him to use a cargo van. We have ordered a 1978 Ford van and need a standard back seat directly behind the driver area. We were told it was a newly passed Federal law that prohibits the installation of a seat in the cargo area. Having exhausted our efforts locally and within our area, we are now in a position to seek assistance from the only person left to aid us in acquiring a seat for our van.

We are the parents of a severely retarded child twelve years of age who is unable to sit normally in a regular seat. We therefore are left to improvise by seat-belting him into a standard seat for transporting him from the various places in the reclinger position.

As I am employed in a part-time position in Delivery, ten miles from our home, it is necessary to use the van on those days for his father to bring him home while I work.

We are therefore requesting your assistance in acquiring a seat for our van by authorizing the Ford Motor Company to install a seat behind the driver equipped with seat belts for the convenience of a handicapped child Please consider this special privilege we are requesting and it is our hope that placing yourself in the same position you will be able to understand the plight.

Your simple attention to this request will be greatly appreciated as our order has not been processed as of this date and we need your authorization to complete our order.

Thanking you in advance.

Mary Edwards Foster

P.S Our order was placed with the Reavis Ford, Inc.

January 21, 1975

To Whom It May Concern:

Christopher Lee Foster, son of Mr. & Mrs. Edward L. Foster is severly physically and mentally retarded with I Q definitely under 40.

Hilda H. Bailey, M. D.

ID: 7764

Mr. G. Thomas Owens
Senior Engineering Representative
Aetna
Post Office Box 26283
Richmond, VA 23260-6283

Dear Mr. Owens:

This responds to your letter requesting information regarding the legal aspects of school bus safety standards. Specifically, you requested a book or pamphlet containing the requested information.

By way of background information, under the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq. (Safety Act), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to promulgate Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, in order to reduce the number of fatalities and injuries that result from motor vehicle crashes. In 1974 Congress enacted the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974 which, by amending section 121 of the Safety Act, directed the issuance of motor vehicle safety standards on specific aspects of school bus safety, applicable to all school buses. Those standards became effective on April 1, 1977 and are included, along with the rest of the agency's safety standards, in 49 CFR Part 571.

The Safety Act defines a school bus as a vehicle that "is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools." NHTSA further defines a school bus as a motor vehicle designed for carrying eleven or more persons, including the driver, and sold for transporting students to and from school or school-related events. See 49 CFR 571.3.

It is a violation of Federal law for any person knowingly to sell as a school bus any new vehicle that does not comply with all applicable Federal school bus safety standards. On the other hand, once a vehicle has been sold to the first purchaser for purposes other than resale, it may be used to transport school children without violating Federal law, even though it may not comply with Federal school bus safety standards. That is because individual states have the authority to regulate the use of vehicles. Therefore, to ascertain whether one may use noncomplying vehicles to transport school children, one must look to state law. It is this agency's position that vehicles meeting Federal school bus safety standards are the safest way to transport school children.

Please find enclosed a pamphlet issued by this agency entitled Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations, which summarizes our safety standards. Specifically, the following standards include requirements for school buses:

Standards 101 through 104; Standard 105 (school buses with hydraulic brakes) Standards 106 through 108; Standards 111 through 113; Standard 115; Standard 116 (school buses with hydraulic service brakes); Standards 119 and 120; Standard 121 (school buses with air brakes); Standard 124; Standard 131 (effective September 1, 1992); Standards 201 through 204 (school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less); Standard 205; Standards 207 through 210; Standard 212 (school buses with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less); Standard 217; Standard 219 (school buses with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less); Standard 220; Standard 221 (school buses with GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds); Standard 222; Standards 301 and 302.

Some of the above-listed standards have unique requirements for school buses, including, but not necessarily limited to, Standards 105, 108, 111, 217, and 301. Other standards are applicable only to school buses, such as Standards 131, 220, 221, and 222. Standard 131 was promulgated on May 3, 1991 and may be found at 56 Federal Register 20370. It requires all school buses manufactured after September 1, 1992, to be equipped with stop signal arms. Standard 220 establishes requirements for school bus rollover protection. Standard 221 establishes strength requirements for school bus body panel joints. Standard 222 establishes minimum crash protection levels for occupants of school buses. Under the provisions of Standard 222, small school buses, that is those with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, must be equipped with lap belts. For large school buses, those with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds, the standard requires occupant protection through "compartmentalization," a concept which calls for strong, well-padded, well-anchored, high-backed, evenly spaced seats.

Should you wish copies of our safety standards, I am enclosing for your information a fact sheet prepared by this office entitled Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions in this regard, please feel free to contact Mr. Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures

Ref:571 d:11/3/92

ID: 7782

The Honorable John D. Dingell
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce
U.S House of Representatives
Room 2125, Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-6115

Dear Chairman Dingell:

Thank you for your letter of September 17, 1992, enclosing correspondence from Mr. Aaron Gordon concerning seat belts on school buses. You requested comments on Mr. Gordon's letter and on H.R. 896, a bill referred to in Mr. Gordon's letter.

The issue of safety belts on school buses is an important topic which the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has thoroughly studied for many years. School bus transportation has been and continues to be one of the safest forms of transportation in America. Every year, approximately 370,000 public school buses travel approximately 3.5 billion miles to transport 22 million children to and from school and school-related activities. Since NHTSA began tracking traffic fatalities in 1975, an average of 16 school bus occupants per year have sustained fatal injuries. While each of these fatalities is tragic, the number of school bus occupant fatalities is small compared to the number of occupant fatalities to children in other types of vehicles. For example, in 1989 there were 5,287 deaths among children aged five to 18 in vehicles other than school buses.

In 1977, NHTSA issued Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, which established minimum crash protection levels for occupants of all school buses. For large school buses, those with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) above 10,000 pounds, the standard requires occupant protection through a concept called "compartmentalization" -- strong, well- padded, well-anchored, high-backed, evenly spaced seats. The effectiveness of "compartmentalization" has been confirmed by independent studies by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Under the current requirements of Standard No. 222, small school buses, those with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, must provide "compartmentalization" and be equipped with lap or lap/shoulder belts at all designated passenger seating positions. The agency believes that safety belts are necessary in addition to "compartmentalization" in small school buses because of their smaller size and weight, which are closer to that of passenger cars and light trucks.

In 1987, the NTSB completed a study of the crashworthiness of large school buses, and concluded that most school bus occupant fatalities and serious injuries were "attributable to the occupants' seating position being in direct line with the crash forces. It is unlikely that the availability of any type of restraint would have improved their injury outcome."

In 1989, NAS completed a study of means to improve school bus safety and concluded that "the overall potential benefits of requiring seat belts on large school buses are insufficient to justify a Federal requirement for mandatory installation. The funds used to purchase and maintain seat belts might better be spent on other school bus safety programs and devices that could save more lives and reduce more injuries." The NAS pointed out that since children are at greater risk of being killed in school bus loading zones (i.e., boarding and leaving the bus) than on board school buses, "a larger share of the school bus safety effort should be directed to improving the safety of bus loading zones." A summary of the NAS report is enclosed.

In response to the recommendations from the NAS study, NHTSA has initiated several rulemaking actions, such as improvements to school bus visibility by the driver and requiring stop signal arms on school buses, designed to improve the safety of students in school bus loading zones. Besides the actions taken in response to the NAS study, NHTSA has initiated several other rulemaking activities to improve further the safety of school buses, e.g., increasing the number of emergency exits, establishing wheelchair securement/occupant restraint requirements, and improving the body joint strength requirements.

While there are no Federal requirements for safety belts on large school buses, states are free to install them if they feel it is in the best interest in their state. However, as noted in the NAS report, if the safety belts are to be beneficial, "states and local school districts that require seat belts on school buses must ensure not only that all school bus passengers wear the belts, but that they wear them correctly."

In summary, the safety record of school buses is outstanding. As such, there is no compelling evidence to suggest that safety belts would provide even higher levels of occupant crash protection. Also, the agency agrees with the conclusion from the NAS report, that there is insufficient reason for a Federal mandate for safety belts on large school buses.

I hope you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

Marion C. Blakey Enclosure

cc: Mr. Aaron Gordon

ref:222 d:11/9/92

ID: nht95-1.74

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 17, 1995

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

TO: Larry W. Overbay -- Director, Automotive and Support Equipment Directorate, U.S. Department of the Army

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/4/94 LETTER FROM LARRY W. OVERBAY TO JOHN WOMACK (OCC 10407)

TEXT: This responds to your letter requesting information about Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 121, Air brake systems, and NHTSA Test Procedure TP 121-02. You stated that your organization recently tested a vehicle's compliance to the emerg ency stopping distance requirements in FMVSS No. 121 by disconnecting the service air signal line at the rear service air relay. You further stated that this action "essentially eliminated rear braking during all stops" making the vehicle totally relian t on the front brakes for stopping. According to your letter, the vehicle manufacturer contends that the manner in which you conducted the test is invalid since it was not done in accordance with NHTSA Test Procedure TP 121-02, which specifies rapid blee ding of the vehicle's air reservoirs.

In addition to general questions about FMVSS No. 121 and the NHTSA Test Procedure, you asked whether the removal of the service air signal line (a non-manifold line which is designed to carry compressed air) from the rear air brake relay valve is conside red by NHTSA to be a valid test of the emergency system requirements under the provisions in FMVSS No. 121. After providing background information that responds to your general questions about testing of motor vehicles, I will respond to your specific q uestion about test conditions applicable to the emergency stopping requirements.

Congress has authorized NHTSA to issue FMVSSs applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. (Formerly, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which has been codified at 49 U.S.C. 30303) NHTSA, however, does not appro ve or endorse motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the statute establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

Each of NHTSA's safety standards specifies performance requirements for the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard.

In addition to the test conditions and procedures set forth in the FMVSSs themselves, NHTSA has provided instructions, known as "compliance test procedures," to the test facilities with which the agency enters into contracts to conduct compliance tests f or the agency. The compliance test procedures are intended to provide a standardized testing and data recording format among the various contractors that perform testing on behalf of the agency, so that the test results will reflect the performance char acteristics of the product being tested, not differences between various testing facilities.

The compliance test procedures must, of course, not be inconsistent with the procedures and conditions that are set forth in the relevant safety standard. However, the compliance test procedures do, on occasion, provide additional detail beyond what is s et forth in the relevant FMVSS. These more detailed test procedures and conditions are requirements only for the contractor test facility in conducting tests on behalf of the agency. The test procedures are subject to change and do not always directly reflect all of the requirements of the particular standard for which they are written. The agency has generally stated that the test procedures are not intended to limit the requirements of the applicable FMVSS(s) and that in some cases the test procedu res do not include all of the various FMVSS minimum performance requirements.

With this background in mind, let me respond to your specific questions. As for your first question, the requirements in FMVSS No. 121 take precedence over the TP 121-02. As noted above, TP 121-02 contains instructions issued by NHTSA to provide inform ation to agency contractors about how to conduct compliance tests. In contrast, the law requires manufacturers to certify their vehicles to Standard No. 121.

As for your question about FMVSS No. 121's emergency stopping test requirements, those requirements are set forth in section S5.7.1. However, those requirements are not currently applicable to trucks and trailers, as the result of the U.S. Court of Appe als decision in PACCAR v. DOT, 573 F.2d 632, (9th Cir. 1978) cert. denied, 439 U.S. 862 (1978). (see S3 of 49 CFR 571.121). The agency retained the language in S5.7.1 so that those manufacturers that wish to construct their vehicles in accordance with the non-mandatory sections of the standard will have the necessary information to do so.

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