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: 8210a

Mr. Thomas L. Wright
Coordinator, Technical Support Unit
State of New Jersey
Department of Law and Public Safety
Division of Motor Vehicles
Trenton, NJ 08666

Dear Mr. Wright:

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.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:205 d:3/11/93

ID: nht88-4.54

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/30/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: FRANK J. TRECY -- GENERAL MANAGER - MANUFACTURING MILLER STRUCTURES, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 11/14/88 FROM F. J. TRECY TO ERIKA Z. JONES, OCC 2811; LETTER DATED 10/04/88 FROM FRANK J. TRECY TO ERIKA Z. JONES

TEXT: Dear Mr. Trecy:

I am writing in response to your request for an interpretation of whether Standard No. 115; Vehicle Identification Number - Basic Requirements (49 CFR @ 571.115) would apply to your company's portable commercial use structures. In your letter to me, you stated that Miller Structures, Inc. manufactures offices, storage buildings, classrooms, laboratories, branch banks, medical clinics, and other related commercial buildings on axles. This allows the structures to be transported to the desired location by attaching them to a truck tractor and moving them over the roads. You state that a "considerable" amount of your units go to a location and are placed there permanently. You inform us that other buildings are placed on a location "for varying length s of time" and are then relocated.

In a subsequent television conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my office, you stated that the structures are not self-propelling but must be towed by a semi-trailer or truck. Some of these structures have removable running gears. You also stated that th e structures are constructed very much like mobile homes, and that the structures are intended to go on the public roads at least once, in order to get to their designated sites. You also stated that your structures are not regulated by the U.S. Departm ent of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) because they are not homes.

Standard No. 115, and all of our safety standards, apply only to vehicles that are "motor vehicles," within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.). The term "motor vehicle" is defined at section 102(3) of the Safety Act as follows:

"Motor Vehicle" means any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

We have interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Agricultural equipment, such as tractors, are not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles design ed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Vehicles, such as mobile construction equipment, that use the public roads only to travel between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site are not considered motor vehicles. In such cases, the use on the public roads is merely incidental, not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured.

On the other hand, vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, utility vehicles like the Jeep are plainly motor vehicles, even though they are equipped with special features to permit off-ro ad operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, NHTSA has interpreted the vehicle to be a "motor vehicle." Further, if a vehicle is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact use d on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, NHTSA has found the vehicle to be a motor vehicle. This finding was made with respect to dune buggies and regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent regarding the terrain on which the vehicles were to be operated.

Based on the information you have provided, it appears that your mobile structures are not "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the Safety Act and, therefore, are not subject to the requirements of Standard No. 115 or any other of our safety standards. This conclusion is based on our judgment that the vehicles seem analogous to mobile construction equipment -- i.e., the on-road use of the vehicles appears to be incidental and not the primary purpose for which the vehicles are manufactured. Please no te that this conclusion is based solely on the facts presented in your letter. We may reexamine this conclusion if additional information becomes available that would warrant a reexamination.

Additionally, you should note that this interpretation applies only to Federal requirements. The individual States may establish their own identification requirements for vehicles that are not subject to the Federal identification requirements, such as your mobile structures. Thus, the State of South Dakota could establish identification requirements applicable to your mobile structures sold in that State.

I hope the information provided is useful. If you need further information on this subject, please contact Dorothy Nakama at (202) 366-2992 or write to me again.

Sincerely,

ID: nht87-1.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/06/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; SIGNATURE UNAVAILABLE; NHTSA

TO: Russell Thatcher -- Director, Mobility Assistance Program, Exective Office of Transportation and Construction, Commonwealth of Massachusetts

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Russell Thatcher Director Mobility Assistance Program Executive Office of Transportation and Construction Commonwealth of Massachusetts 10 Park Plaza, Room 3510 Boston, MA 02116-3969

Thank you for your letter of October 3, 1986, to NHTSA Regional Administrator Jack Connors requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. Your letter was referred to my office for reply.

You explained that you are in the process of buying a number of vans which will be outfitted with Republic Seating Corporation's Model D117 seats. You stated that questions have been raised about whether the safety belt placement on those seats complies with our standard. You enclosed a quarter-scale diagram of the seat in question showing the location of the safety belts and asked our opinion about whether the safety belt placement complies with our standard.

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which this agency enforces, it is the responsibility of a vehicle manufacturer to certify that its products comply with the requirements of our standards. This agency does not have the authority to approve a manufacturer's design plans. We can offer our opinion, but it is the manufacturer's obligation to ensure that the finished vehicle complies with all of the applicable standards.

The standard which affects the mounting angle for safety belts is Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. The drawing enclosed with your letters shows that the lap safety belt anchorage for this seat is installed on the frame of the seat. S4.3.1 .3 of the standard provides:

In an installation in which the seat belt anchorage is on the seat structure, the line from the seating reference point to the nearest contact point of the belt with the hardware attaching it to the anchorage shall extend forward from that contact point at an angle with the horizontal of not less than 20o and not more than 75o.

According to the drawing enclosed with your letter, the line from the seating reference point to the nearest contact point of the safety belt, on the outboard side of the seat, with the hardware attaching it to the anchorage is 75o. If the outboard porti on of the safety belt is installed in a completed vehicle in the location shown in the drawing would meet the requirement of S4.3.1.3, since its mounting angle is not more than 75o.

We cannot offer a opinion as to whether the inboard portion of the safety belt would comply with S4.3.1.3, since the mounting angle for that portion of the safety belt is not depicted in the drawing. I want to emphasize again, that this letter represents the opinion of the agency based on the facts you have presented. It is a manufacturer's responsibility under the Vehicle Safety Act to certify that its completed vehicle complies with our standard.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Mr. Jack Connors, Regional Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 55 Broadway / Kendall Square Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142

Re: Interpretation of, and Compliance with, Specification 49 CFR Section 571-210 Subsection 4.3.1.3

Dear Mr. Connors:

The State of Massachusetts, acting through the Executive Office of Transportation & Construction, administers the Federal 16(b)(21 and State Mobility Assistance Programs. These programs provide grant subsidies to private and public non profit agencies ac ross the state for the purchase of wheelchair lift equipped vans and minibuses used to transport elderly and disabled persons.

We are currently in the process of purchasing forty three (43) vans from Collins Bus Corporation which will be outfitted with Republic Seating Corporations Model D117 seats. Questions have been raised about the current seat belt placement being utilized by Republic Seating.

We would like to request an opinion from your office on whether or not the design complies with federal standards. Attached is a quarter-scale diagram of the seat showing the location of the seat belts.

Your expeditious handling of the matter would be greatly appreciated. During the last year approximately 100 vehicles across the State have been purchased and are being operated in transportation programs.

Should you require additional information, please contact my Assistant Director Royal Spurlark or myself at 973-?000. should you need to contact Republic Seating for information, you can call Mr. Peter Redding, President of that company at (312) 628-8500 .

Sincerely,

Russell Thatcher Director Mobility Assistance Program

SEE HARD COPY FOR GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATIONS

ID: nht87-1.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/24/87

FROM: Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Hal McNamara

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 09/29/87 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES TO PETER MCINTOSH; LETTER DATED 01/01/87 (EST) FROM PETER MCINTOSH TO TAYLOR VINSON (OCC 797)

TEXT:

Mr. Hal McNamara McNamara Pontiac Inc. P.O. Box 3269 Orlando, FL 32802

Dear Mr. McNamara:

This is in reply to your letter of September 29, 1986, to Mr. Vinson of this office asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard NO. 108. You have enclosed a copy of a flyer for "Ad-A-Lens:" the device appears to be an overlay with a dea ler's name, intended to be placed over the lens of the center highmounted stop lamp. You have told us that "the company selling this product says there is no problem legally or safety-wise....." You have also furnished us with a portion of a preamble to the standard discussing the visibility requirements for the lamp in which the statement is made that beyond the specified test points "no requirements are established other than that the signal be 'visible,' which means any portion of the signal, without regard to lens area or candela."

Standard No. 108 does not prohibit adding an overlay to the center highmounted stop lamp that contains a dealer's name. However, the addition of the overlay must not create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108, in violation of the National Traffic and M otor Vehicle Safety Act.

Paragraph S4.1.1.41(a) requires each center highmounted stop lamp to have an effective projected luminous area not less than 4 1/2 square inches. Application of dealer identification to an original equipment lamp not designed for the overlay could well r educe the luminous area below the minimum required by the standard. Further, there is the possibility that the overlay could affect photometric compliance as well. The lamp must meet the photometric requirements at the 13 test points specified in Standar d No. 108 up to the maximum specified 10 degrees right and left. Beyond 10 degrees, up to 45 degrees right and left, the overlay must not obscure the signal so that no portion of it is visible.

Should the overlay create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108, any person offering for sale or selling a vehicle with it would be in violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as would any dealer adding an overlay to the lamp of a vehicle after it is sold. The Act provides that a penalty of up to $1000 per violation may be imposed, up to a maximum of $800,000 for any related series of violations. You should also seek the advice of State motor vehicle authorities on this matter.

We are providing a copy of this interpretation to Ad-A-Lens, and appreciate your bringing this matter to our attention.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

cc: Ad-A-Lens

Mr. Tayor Vinson Legal Council NHTSA-FMVSS - 108 Department of Transportation 400 7th St. S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Vinson,

Would you please give us your opinion of a new car dealer using "Ad-A-Lens" to add dealership identification using the high mounted stop lamp on a new vehicle. The company selling this product says there is no problem legally or safety-wise, but we would appreciate your opinion on any modification or addition to the stop lamp.

Sincerely,

Hal McNamara

HM/dp

MAKE A FAST BRAKE IN THE LIGHT DIRECTION WITH AD-A-LENS

INSERT GRAPHICS Have you reached the crossroads of exorbitant advertising costs that cut into your profits? AD-A-LENS helps you put the "Brakes" on high advertising costs while allowing you visual exposure to the buying public 24 hours a day, 365 days a year! Now you can have your dealerships name prominently displayed in lights for just pennies. AD-A-LENS has been uniquely designed to become an integral part of every car. Just imagine your dealerships name appearing in lights over 50,000* times a year from just one car you sold! 34AD-A-LENS is now offering dealerships a special one-time discount purchase price. Don't be left in the dark, call today for details: AD-A-LENS (305) 629-5777 1500 W. FAIRBANKS - WINTER PARK, FL 32789

20820 Federal Register

Paragraph S4.1.1.41(b) requires that the signal be "visible to the rear through a horizontal angle from 45 degrees to the left to 45 degrees to the right ***". Koito asked what the agency considered "visible". This appears especially important for the de sign of the shroud on interior mounted lamps. In the agency's opinion, the lamp must meet the test points specified in Figure 10 up to the maximum specified 10 degrees right and left. Beyond those points until 45 degrees right and left, no requirements a re established other than that the signal be "visible", which means any portion of the signal, without regard to lens area or candela.

ID: nht88-2.64

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/08/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: NORMAN D. SHUMWAY -- CONGRESS

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/29/89 ESTIMATED, FROM JEFFREY R. MILLER -- NHTSA TO JOHN D. DINGELL -- HOUSE; REDBOOK A34; STANDARD 205; LETTER DATED 09/22/89 FROM JOHN D. DINGELL -- HOUSE TO JEFFREY R. MILLER; LETTER DATED 08/25/89 FROM CONSTANCE A. MORELLA -- HOUSE TO NORMAN Y. MINETA -- HOUSE; LETTER DATED 07/31/89 FROM W. MARSHALL RICKERT -- MVA TO CONSTANCE A. MORELLA; LETTER DATED 11/01/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO BEVERLY B. BYRON -- HOUSE; INTERPRETATION STANDARD 205

TEXT: Dear Mr. Shumway:

Thank you for your recent letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Ernest P. Crockett, who received a State of California citation for having tinted film on his car windows for medical reasons. You asked me to review Mr. Crockett's letter and provide a ny comments or assitance that I could. I am pleased to have this opportunity to do so.

Mr. Crockett suffers from systemic lupus erythematosus and as a result needs protection from ultra-violet rays. He consulted with the California Highway Patrol and was told that the law allowed him to use tinting film on his car windows, if he had a med ical letter stating that this was necessary. Not known at this time to Mr. Crockett was a provision in the California law prohibiting the use of noncomplying medically-necessary devices during darkness. Mr. Crockett had Security Glass System's "Almost Clear" tinting permanently installed on his windshield and front windows and was subsequently given a citation by the California Patrol for not being in compliance with @ 26708(a)(2) of the California Vehicle Code. Upon further inquiry, Mr. Crockett lea rned that his film was unacceptable because it had been permanently affixed, and that a much darker tint (blocking 70 percent of light) film was allowable, if it was removable at darkness.

Some background information on the Federal requirements in this area may be helpful. Our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. The safety standard that specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles is Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 pe rcent in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars). Under Standard 205 no manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and other sun screen devices in a new vehicle, without certifying that the v ehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard.

After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to the vehicle's glazing are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That section prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with any safety standard. In the case of glazing, this means that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business could install a sun screen device that would result in a light t ransmittance of less than 70 percent for any window of a passenger car, or result in the window no longer complying with any other requirements of Standard No. 205. Violations of this "render inoperative" provision can result in Federal civil penalties to the manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business of up to $ 1000 for each noncomplying installation. The materials enclosed with Mr. Crockett's letter appear to show that the business that installed the film on his car windows did not render inoperative compliance with the light transmittance requirements of Standard No. 205, since the film installed on Mr. Crockett's car windows is said to have 70 percent light transmittance.

However, Federal law does not affect vehicle owners. Vehicle owners may alter their own vehicles and operate them on the highways as they please, even if the vehicle's glazing no longer complies with the requirements of Standard No. 205. We do, however, urge vehicle owners not to take actions that degrade the performance of required safety features.

The individual States have the authority to govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners. In this case, the State of Californai has exercised its authority to establish requirements in this area. The wisdom and fairness of applying those requ irements to individuals in Mr. Crockett's situation is something to be decided by the State of California, not the Federal government.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some more information on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact Ms. Susan Schruth of my staff at this address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ID: 86-3.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/17/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Yueh-An Chen

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Yueh-Am Chen Division Head Planning Division Yue Loong Motor Company, Ltd. P.O. Box 510 Taoyuan Taiwan 330 Republic of China

Dear Sir:

This is in reply to your letter of January 23, 1986, asking questions about features of motor vehicle headlighting systems.

Your first question is "to which regulations the headlamp assembly unit should be conformed, if this model is to be exported to U.S.A." The regulation that applies to motor vehicle headlighting assemblies is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Its official citation is Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Section 571.108. Standard No. 108 incorporates various materials of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) pertaining to headlamps, such as photometric performance.

With respect to sealed beam headlamps, you have asked whether "it is necessary for us to set the aiming adjust device in front of the lamp unit, i.e. the aiming can be adjusted outside the vehicle?" The standard requires that all headlamps, whether sealed beam or not, must be capable of mechanical aim, that is to say, with an aiming device placed in front of the lamp unit without the removal of any vehicle parts. However, the actual aim adjustment device such as a screw or knob may be located anywhere.

With respect to replaceable bulb headlamps, you have asked whether there is any regulation "regarding the maximum degree of the inclination" of the lens, such as a 20 degree maximum. No, there is no regulatory limitation. However, the headlamp must comply with the minimum photometric requirements of Standard No. 108 with the lens in its design position, and it must be mechanically aimable using equipment designed to interface with the three aiming pads required to be located on the headlamp lens. The degree to which inclination may be limited is influenced by the design of mechanical aiming equipment available in the field for aim inspection and aiming. Consequently, you should contact manufacturers of such equipment to be sure that your headlamps are designed to be mechanically aimable as required by law.

You have also asked if there is any regulation regarding the necessity of putting on or off the headlamp unit outside the vehicle, i.e. do not need to open hood." No, there is no such U.S. regulation.

Finally, you have asked "If a headlamp unit can satisfy the photometric requirements of the SAP, but a small area of the lens is shaded by the other part of the vehicle" is such a configuration permissible. The answer is yes, as long as the headlamp unit can satisfy the photometric requirements as shaded by that part of the vehicle, and as long as any replacement headlamp units produced by you or others can also meet the photometric requirements in the shaded location.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

January 23, 1986

NHTSA 400 Seventh St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Dear Sir,

We are the largest automobile manufacturer in Taiwan, R.O.C. In order to make our newly designed model satisfy the U.S.A. regulation, we are now confronted by some troubles in the part of headlight system. If it is possible, please provide us with the following informations:

1. To which regulations the headlamp assembly unit should be conformed, if this model is to be exported to U.S.A.

2. If adopting sealed beam headlamp unit, is it necessary for us to set the aiming adjust device in front of the lamp unit, i.e., the aiming can be adjusted outside the vehicle?

3. If adopting replaceable-bulb headlamp unit, not sealed beam, is there any regulation regarding the maximum degree of the inclination of glass lense, e.g., must be less than 20o (inclination degree (A) as showed in Fig)?

4. Is there any regulation regarding the necessary of putting on or off the headlamp unit outside the vehicle, i.e., do not need to open the hood:

5. If a headlamp unit can satisfy the photometric requirements of the SAE, but a small area of the lens is shaded by the other part of the vehicle, then, could it pass the regulations or not?

Your kind assistance and earliest reply will be highly appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

Yueh-An Chen Division Head Planning Division

ID: nht94-1.88

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

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 manufa ctured 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 date s." (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 co nsidered 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 requi red 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 me chanisms 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 bus es 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: nht94-2.34

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 12, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ted H. Richardson -- Fleet Coordinator, Priefert Manufacturing Company, Inc. (Mt. Pleasant, Texas)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/15/93 from Ted H. Richardson to Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 9478)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter and telephone call to this office asking our opinion regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars. Your letter referenced a telephone c onversation with Walter Myers of my staff about the applicability of FMVSS 120 to your product. As Mr. Myers informed you, the answer to your question depends on whether your product, the "Wishbone Carriage" used to position and carry the "Priefert live stock chute" is a "motor vehicle" (i.e., trailer) under our Safety Act and regulations. Based on the information we have, we believe the answer is no.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. S1381, et seq. (Safety Act), authorizes this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), to issue safety standards applicable t o motor vehicles. Section 102(3) (15 U.S.C. S1391(3)) of the Safety Act defines motor vehicle as:

(A)ny vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

NHTSA further defines "trailer" in 49 CFR 571.3 as:

(A) motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle.

Your letter enclosed a brochure containing pictures and other information relating to the livestock chute (Priefert Squeeze Chute, Model 91). The chute is farm equipment. The upper 2/3 of the chute is constructed of steel bars, while the lower 1/3 is c omposed of steel panels on both sides that can be lowered or removed. The chute comes with such accessories as head gate, tail gate, and calf table. The chute is positioned on the ground in a barnyard, feed lot, pasture, or field. It is used to channe l livestock or, with the head and/or tail gate in place, to immobilize an animal for medicating, branding, tagging, and the like. Your information also describes the carriage that transports the chute. The Wishbone Carriage is a 2-wheeled U-shaped doll y which is designed to be manually attached to special fittings on the chute.

With the carriage thus attached, the chute can be towed by vehicle to the next job site. Once at the next job site, the wheeled carriage is detached and the chute is once again placed on the ground for use.

Whether the Wishbone Carriage is a motor vehicle (trailer) depends on its on-road use. This agency has consistently held that vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use, such as airport runway vehicles and underground mining equipment, are not c onsidered motor vehicles even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Vehicles that have an abnormal body configuration that readily distinguishes them from other highway vehicles and that have a maximum speed of 20 miles per hour ar e not considered motor vehicles. Agricultural equipment, such as tractors, as well as equipment that uses the highways solely to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site, are not considered motor veh icles. That is because the use of these vehicles on the public roadways is intermittent and merely incidental to their primary off-road use.

We have determined that the Wishbone Carriage is not a motor vehicle, because it appears it will be primarily used to transport the chute from job site to job site on the farm. Not being a motor vehicle, the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, inclu ding FMVSS No. 120, would not apply to your product.

Please note, however, that if the Carriage is regularly used to carry the chute from farm to farm on public roads, or is used more frequently on the public roads than the use we anticipate, the agency may reexamine the determination that the carriage is not a motor vehicle. Also, you may wish to consult your attorney for information on possible operational restrictions on your product, such as State licensing and use laws and product liability.

I hope this information is helpful to you. We have enclosed a copy of FMVSS 120 and provided you our definition of a trailer, as you requested. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.