ID: nht87-2.78

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/26/87

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: TAK FUJITANI -- PROGRAM MANAGER, INSPECTION SERVICES OFFICE OF FLEET ADMINISTRATION CALIFORNIA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/24/89 EST; FROM JEFFREY R. MILLER -- NHTSA TO MICHAEL E. KASTNER -- NATIONAL TRUCK EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATION; REDBOOK A34; STANDARD 204; LETTER DATED 08/01/89 FROM MICHAEL E. KASTNER -- NATIONAL TRUCK EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATI ON; TO SAMUEL K. SKINNER -- DOT; OCC 3809; LETTER DATED 06/29/89 FROM SAMUEL K. SKINNER -- DOT TO ERNEST F. HOLLINGS -- SENATE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Fujitani:

This letter responds to your inquiries addressed to Joan Tilghman of my staff. Your letters concern buses purchased by the State of California, and manufactured by Champion Home Builders, Commercial Vehicle Division (Champion). You inform us that Champio n is a final stage manufacturer of vehicles built on a Ford chassis. You have rejected delivery of these vehicles because you assert that they do not comply with either California or Federal motor Vehicle regulations. This response addresses only those issues arising from Federal requirements.

As I understand your letters, you pose two principle questions. First, you ask whether classifying an incomplete vehicles as a "chassis" rather than as a "chassis cab" means that a final stage manufacturer can not alter the original chassis manufacturer 's gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). You assert that Champion's altering of the GVWR on a vehicle classified as a "chassis" is a noncompliance under 49 CFR sections 567.5 and 568.4 which you may use as grounds for rejecting delivery of Champion's vehi cles.

Your second question involves data set out in your letter of April 14, suggesting that Champion's certified GVWR for these vehicles is less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, the rated cargo load, and 150 lbs. times the vehicles' designated sea ting capacity. You state that this circumstance is a second noncompliance with Federal regulations upon which you have rejected delivery of Champion's buses.

The Cutaway Chassis/Chassis Cab Question.

In both your letters, you refer to provisions of 49 CFR 567.5 and 568.4, and to a 1977 Federal Register document (42 FR 37814, 37816, July 25, 1977). You state your interpretation of these 49 CFR provisions as "mean(ing) that final stage manufacturers ( who build on RV cutaways) are not authorized to alter the (GVWR) imposed by incomplete vehicle manufacturers since final stage manufacturers do not have any basis for

2

certifying a greater load carrying capaci(ty) without altering axle components to handle the extra load." As I understand it, when you speak of an RV cutaway you mean a vehicle chassis with an incomplete occupant compartment, intended for completion as a recreational vehicle. For any incomplete vehicle (including a cutaway or chassis cab), Part 568 requires the incomplete vehicle manufacturer to provide a document that describes how to complete the vehicle without impairing the vehicle's compliance sta tus. This document is not a certification.

If the incomplete vehicle is other than a chassis cab, the final stage manufacturer who builds on the incomplete vehicle must certify its compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). On the other hand, the certification process is different if an incomplete vehicle meets the agency's definition of "chassis cab." The Federal Register document to which you refer amended 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568 to conform with a court decision holding that NHTSA could not require a final stage manufacturer to make the "sole certification" of compliance for a vehicle built on a chassis cab. As a consequence of this decision, NHTSA established a dual certification scheme for such vehicles in which the chassis cab manufacturer makes one c ertification statement in each of three categories, and the final stage manufacturer makes corresponding statements depending on how the final stage manufacturer affects any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS).

Under this dual certification scheme, the original chassis cab manufacturer may provide instructions telling a final stage manufacturer how to complete a vehicle so that it conforms with applicable FMVSS. The final stage manufacturer has the choice of e ither conforming his work to the chassis cab manufacturer's instructions and shifting the burden under Part 567 of certifying compliance to the chassis can manufacturer; or deviating from those instructions, and assuming the certification burden for hims elf. Further, the final stage manufacturer must certify compliance respecting any FMVSS for which the chassis cab manufacturer makes no representation.

While you are correct that in the 1977 Federal Register document the agency decided to exclude RV cutaways from the definition of "chassis cab," the only effect of this exclusion is that dual certification requirements do not apply to vehicles completed on an RV cutaway.

Therefore, the answer to your first question is that a final stage manufacturer may change the GVWR for any incomplete vehicle, irrespective of whether he builds the completed vehicle on an RV cutaway or a chassis cab. However, if the final stage manufa cturer changes the GVWR for the vehicles, it must certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSS at this new GVWR. Compliance with Standards No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, and No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other Than Pass enger Cars might well be affected by an increase in the GVWR. The final stage manufacturer is required to exercise "due care" when certifying that its vehicle complies with all safety standards at this increased GVWR. Our Office of Vehicle Safety Compl iance has asked the

3

[Illegible Word] stage manufacturer of these vehicles to provide the data and other evidence that were the basis for Champion's certification of compliance at this higher GVWR.

Champion's Certified GVWR Calculation.

Part 567 of NHTSA regulations sets out requirements for affixing a certification label or tag to a motor vehicles. Section 567.4(g)(3) of that Part states that the certified GVWR:

". . . shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity. However, for school buses the minimum occupant weight allowance shall be 120."

In your April letter, you supply weightmaster readings for the two Champion motor vehicles that are the subject of your inquiry. While Champion certifies the GVWR for both these vehicles at 12,000 pounds, you indicated that according to your $ 567.4(g)( 3) calculation, the same are 12,147 pounds and 12,580 pounds. This agency considers vehicle overloading a serious safety problem for the affected vehicle and for the motoring public, and NHTSA may take appropriate remedial action against any manufacturer whose vehicle, laden with its intended cargo load, exceeds the manufacturer's GVWR. NHTSA's Office of Vehicles Safety Compliance is investigating this matter further.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

February 17, 1987

Dear Ms. Tilghman:

This letter is in reference to our telephone conversation on February 6, 1981, concerning the interpretation of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) statutes, regulations and standards. Particularly in 49 CFR 567.5, paragraph (c), ( iii), labeling and certification requirements for final stage manufacturers who complete certain incomplete vehicles. and 49 CFR 568.4 which requires the incomplete vehicle manufacturer to furnish with the incomplete vehicle a document that contains:

(1) Name and mailing address of the incomplete vehicle manufacturer,

(2) Month and year during which the incomplete vehicle manufacturer performed his last manufacturing operation on the incomplete vehicle.

(3) Identification of the incomplete vehicle to which the document applies.

(4) Gross vehicle weight rating of the completed vehicle for which the incomplete vehicle is intended.

(5) Gross axle weight rating for each axle of the completed vehicle.

(6) Listing of the vehicle types as defined in 49 CFR 571.3 of this chapter (e.g., truck, MPV, bus, trailer) into which the incomplete vehicle may appropriately be manufactured.

(7) Listing by number of each standard, in effect at the time of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle, that applies to any of the vehicle types listed in this paragraph (a)(6) of this section, followed in eaxch case by one of the following three types o f statement, as applicable:

(i) A statement that the vehicle when completed will conform to the standard if no alterations are made in identified components of the incomplete vehicle.

(ii) A statement of specific conditions of final manufacture under which the manufacturer specifies that the completed vehcile will conform to the standard.

(iii) A statement that conformity with the standard is not substantially affected by the design of the incomplete vehicle, and that the incomplete vehicle manufacturer makes no representation as to conformity with the standard.

In referencing 49 CFR 567.5, paragraph (c)(iii), we interpret the regulation to mean that the RV Cutaway chassis rated at 11,000 lbs. GVWR by the incomplete vehicle, manufacturer, is not classfied as a chassis-cab, therefore, no allowance is made to perm it alterations as they do for chassis-cabs.

In the Federal Register, 42 FR 47816. July 25, 1977, NHTSA denied the Recreation Vehicle Industry Association's (RVIA) request to change the definition of chassis-cab to include certain incomplete vehicles that are completed as motor homes and cutaway ch assis, etc. RVIA requested this rule change possibly because chassis-cabs may be altered and new GAWR and GVWR ratings may be certified by the final stage manufacturer.

The provisions in part 56B - vehicles manufactured in two or more stages - prescribes methods by which manufacturers of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages ensure conformity of those vehicles with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and ot her regulations issued under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

We interpret the regulations, 567.5(c)(iii). and 568.4(4) (5). to mean that final stage manufacturers are not authorized to alter the gross vehicle weight ratings imposed by incomplete vehicle manufacturers since final stage manufacturers do not have any basis for certifying a greater load carrying capacities without altering axle components to handle the extra load.

The types of vehicles in question are;

Incomplete vehicle, Ford RV Cutaway chassis, 176" wheel base, rated at 11,000 lbs. GVWR.

The completed vehicles may be:

- 16 passenger bus with two (2) wheelchair stations and chair lift. - 22 passenger bus with a drive line Telma electric retarder. - 24 passenger bus.

The new gross vehicle weight ratings may be:

- 11,550 lbs. GVWR

- 11,900 lbs. GVWR

The buses being questioned are manufactured by Champion Home Builders, Commercial Vehicle Division; however, there are other manufacturers following similar guidelines.

We are holding up three purchases which we feel may be overloaded when maximum passengers are being carried.

Please advise us of you legal opinion on this matter at your earliest convenience. This issue is safety related and I believe that manufacturers are not in compliance with the aforementioned regulations and instructions provided by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer.

Sincerely,

Tak Fujitani Program Manager Inspection Services

cc: George Williams

California Highway patrol Motor Carrier Section Sacramento, California 95814 (916) 445-1526

April 14, 1987

Dear Ms. Tilgman:

This is supplemental letter following my letter of request for interpretation of 49 CFR 567.5(c)(iii) and 49 CFR 568.4 dated February 17, 1987, and telephone discussions held during the past week.

As I have mentioned in my letter of February 17, 1987, be interpret the regulations 567.5(c)(iii), and 568.4(4)(5), to mean that final stage manufacturers are not authorized to alter gross axle weight ratings and gross vehicle height ratings imposed by i ncomplete vehicle manufacturers, particularly, on GVWR cutaway chassis which are rated at 11,000 lbs. GVWR

The factor affecting the 11,000 lbs. limitation is based on the least rated component, which is the rating of 7,400 lbs. imposed on the rear axle, Adding additional springs on the rear axle will not increase the load carrying ability of the completed veh icle. We have confirmed this through Ford Light Truck Applications and Dana Axle Applications Engineers; both have stated that the application of the completed vehicle remain; at 11,000 lbs. GVWR in RV cutaway chassis.

Champion Home Builders Company rates the completed vehicle at 12,000 lbs. GM, which is not consistent with the incomplete vehicle manufacturers instructions, and it is misleading to owner/operators to have two load ratings.

Three buses manufactured or Champion Home Builders Company and ordered for the State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation at Angle Island State Park were inspected on April 1 and again on April 7 for compliance with the State specifications at TW Bus Sales in West Sacramento.

Two of these buses are 25 passenger perimeter seating tour buses, and the other is a 21 passenger forward seating bus with rear storage compartment 33 inches deep. All three buses are equipped with a Telma electric brake retarder system, CD 30, or equal. One 25 passenger bus and one 21 passenger bus were weighed to calculate the loaded weight of the buses. Following are the weighmaster readings with load calculations: 21 passenger bus 25 passenger bus forward facing seats perimeter seating rear luggage compartment seats front axle, unladen weight 3,520 lbs. 3,660 lbs. rear axle, unladen weight 5,180 lbs. 4,920 lbs. total 8,700 lbs, 8,580 lbs. 21 passengers and 25 pass engers and driver at 150 lbs. 3,300 lbs. driver at 150 lbs. 3,900 lbs. luggage-day packs or small picnic baskets 7 lbs. atx 21 people 147 lbs. 4 bicycles & rack 100 lbs total 12,147 lbs 12,500 lbs.

Certification labels on the buses are:

* Ford Incomplete Vehicle label * Champion Home Builders Co. label 11,000 lbs. GVWR Date of Mfg 11-86 type bus 12,000 lbs. GVWR WB Type Body Trans Axle Sp Inc Veh Mftg by Ford 176" E303 AK G 52 OL Dste of Mfg 9-85

* Incomplete Vehicle Manual

GVWR 11,000 lbs. F GAWR R GAWR F GAWR R GAWR 4,200 lbs 7,400 lbs. 4,200 lbs. 8,200 lbs. LT215/85R16D LT215/85R16D LT215/85R16D LT215/75R16D 16X6K 16K6K 16X6K 16X6K dual 58p Champion Ser No. 5573241F1984

May be completed as: Multi Pur Pass Veh Truck

The Office of Fleet Administration has rejected the three buses delivered to the State by Champion Home Builders Company on grounds of noncompliance with State and Federal Regulations. * California Vehicle code, Division 12, Equipment of Vehicles Section 24002: Vehicle not Equipped or Unsafe

Section 24011: Federal Safety Standards

* Code of Federal Regulation, Title 69, Transportation 49 CFR 567.5(c) (s)(iii), Certification Label

49 CFR 578.4(4) 95). Requirements for Incomplete Vehicle Manufactur4r's

* Gross Vehicle Weight Rate in. Final stage manufacturers of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages are required to affix a label to each vehicle which contains, among other statements, Gross Vehicle height Rating or GVWR" followed by the appropriat e value in pounds, which shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds time the vehicle's designated seating capacity.

The gross vehicle weight rating posted on the certification label is less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity, the incomplete Vehicle Manufacturers rating of 11,000 pounds should be applied, however, it is also out of compliance with Champion's GVWR of 12,000 pounds.

We believe that the final stage manufacturer is not in compliance with the aforementioned regulations and instructions provided by the incomplete Vehicle manufacturer.

Please advise us or your legal opinion and interpretation of the regulations we have discussed

Sincerely,

Tak Fujitani Program Manager Inspection Services

Attachments

cc: George William

California Highway Patrol Motor Carrier Section

Tom McCauley Office of procurement

ID: nht74-2.13

DATE: 09/30/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Nabors Trailers, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your August 21, 1974, question whether a "logging pole trailer", which consists of a beam to which an axle-mounted bolster can be clamped at different points to accomodate different log lengths, qualifies as a heavy hauler trailer as that term is defined in Standard No. 121, Air brake systems:

"Heavy hauler trailer" means a trailer with one or more of the following characteristics:

(1) Its brake lines are designed to adapt to separation or extension of the vehicle frame; or

(2) Its body consists only of a platform whose primary cargo-carrying surface is not more than 40 inches above the ground in an unloaded condition, except that it may include sides that are designed to be easily removable and a permanent "front-end structure" as that term is used in @ 393.106 of this title.

This also acknowledges receipt of your September 5 and September 17, 1974, letters on the same subject.

The logging pole trailer you describe is a heavy hauler trailer, and as such, Standard No. 121 does not apply to this trailer until September 1, 1976. The beam or "reach", together with the bolster, constitutes the frame of the trailer, and the brake lines are designed to adapt to extension of the bolster element along the beam.

This arrangement differs from the standard highway van which has a one-piece frame with an adjustable tandem axle. The purpose of this sliding arrangement is unrelated to an extension of the frame itself to accomodate the transportation of heavy or oversize loads.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

NABORS TRAILERS, INC.

Sept. 17, 1974

Sidney Williams -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Williams:

It should be of interest and concern to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that we have not had the sight nor the specifications nor the price of a brake equipped axle assembly that can be certified to meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 121. We are wholly dependent upon the one source for our brake axle assemblies. From that source we have been told that they have encountered one delay after another in their program to develop and test brakes that will meet the new requirements. Their best hope now is that by the end of October they will be able to give us technical information and sometime in November they will be able to begin shipping certifiable brakes.

The same situation prevails with respect to wheel and drum assemblies. Our supplier of drums have told us that they are conducting tests now and that they should be able to tell us in November what drums will be required for compliance with the new Safety Standard.

You can guess from this information the predicament in which we find ourselves when trailers that we put into production in December scheduled for completion in January will be required by law to be in compliance with SS 121. We are certain that there are many other trailer manufacturers who are dependent upon the same sources of supply that we are who are in the same predicament. There may be other sources of supply for brake axle assemblies and for wheels and drums who are ready to describe and certify their products to meet the new Safety Standard, but we, for one, could not at this time get in schedule with new suppliers.

Sincerely yours, B. H. Smith -- President

NABORS TRAILERS, INC.

Sept. 5, 1974

Sidney Williams -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Williams:

On November 15, 1973 I sent a collection of our pole trailer catalogs and of photographs of logging pole trailers in service to the Truck Trailers Manufacturers Association in Washington. I thought that these had been sent over to your offices. Perhaps they never did get there. My letter went to Mr. M. L. Higgins who at that time was handling these matters for TTMA, and very shortly after that he resigned and Mr. Burt Weller took his place.

With this letter I am sending you two each of our Catalog 196 and our Form 198 describing our standard types of pole trailers.

The logging pole trailers described in Catalog 196 are those about which we are primarily concerned with respect to MVSS 121. Those trailers are designed and used exclusively in logging operations and move logs from the woods to the saw mills or to storage areas. Logging pole trailers are subjected to unbelievably difficult conditions, or at least unbelievable to those who have never witnessed difficult logging operations. Maintaining brakes and lights on logging pole trailers when the very minimum of equipment is used is difficult and often impossible. When the hardware that is required for compliance with MVSS 121 is added to braking equipment as now being used, the difficulties of maintenance will be multiplied and the likelihood that the brakes will be kept operational is reduced.

On the inside of Catalog 196 you will see good views of the rear assembly of our two popular models, the Logmaster and the SPR. These two trailers are identical in capacity and in usage, and the two models are built simply because some loggers like one type and some like the other. In both models you will see that the rear bolster sits on a frame that sits on the two-spring suspension that sits on the axles. A pole or drawbar connects the front bolster assembly to the rear assembly. The rear assembly can slide along the pole to change the distance between the front and rear bolsters to accommodate various log lengths. If you look closely you will see that the rear assembly is locked into place on the pole by means of clamping collors around the coupling pole ahead of and behind the rear assembly. Also, for safety purposes a pin is dropped through the pole at the rear to avoid the possibility that the trailer might slide off the pole.

You will see in the illustrations that the two hoses for the brakes and the cable for the lighting on the rear assembly are connected to the truck or to the front bolster assembly at the front and are connected to the rear assembly at the rear with quick detachable couplings. You will see that when the distance between the bolsters is relatively short these brake and light lines must be coiled up and supported by the pole. If the trailer should be extended in length, the full length of these lines would be required. It is a characteristic of these trailers that the brake lines are designed to adapt to permitting the distance between the front and rear bolsters to contract and to expand.

Another common practice in the use of logging pole trailers is to load the rear frame assembly on the back end of the truck when the trailer and truck are being carried unloaded back into the woods. This practice is for both economic and safety reasons. When the rear assembly is loaded on the truck the brake lines must be disconnected. Also, no part of the brake system can extend below the bottom of the axles because the axles must rest on the truck frame or on the runners that are put on the truck frame to carry the trailer.

When you look closely at these pictures of these logging pole trailers you will observe that the space between the axles and the load-carrying bolster is limited and is filled with equipment with current types of brakes. The trailers shown have only one air reservoir. In order to comply with MVSS 121 another larger air reservoir will have to be added. There simply is no place to put it on these logging pole trailers without interfering severely with their intended usage. If in addition to this other air reservoir we must add spring-loaded power chambers and the valves and logic boxes and electrical connections required for the anti-skid brake system, it is up to now inconceivable to us how to add that hardware in such a way that it could reasonably be expected to stay on the trailers when they are used in the log woods.

The Models TP and TPC Pole Trailers illustrated in our Form 198 are designed and used primarily for hauling pipe and poles and reinforcing rods and long steel beams and other, long and self-supporting objects. The same difficulties in adding the anti-skid brake equipment and the spring loaded power chambers apply to these trailers as to the logging pole trailers. However, since these two models are used primarily on improved roads the difficulties of maintaining the equipment would not be as great. Trailers of these two models constitute no more than perhaps 50 units a year for us. They do have the same characteristic of logging pole trailers in that the brake lines are designed to be adapted to permitting the distance between the front and rear bolsters to change. There would be the same difficulties on these trailers in getting the speed of brake application and release that there would be on other pole trailers.

I can understand the difficulty of writing an exemption for any one class or category of trailers without letting the exemption be subject to unintended interpretations. However, it has seemed to me since we first became concerned with the problems of MVSS 121 that pole trailers as defined in Part 371.3 of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards could be exempted without any reasonable misunderstandings. Pole trailers as defined in Part 371.3 were exempted from the requirements of MVSS 108 and have been exempted from certification requirements. I have not understood why they could no also be exempted from MVSS 121, and I think that their categorical exemption would be beneficial rather than detrimental to the highway safety program. I have made all of these statements previously in letters to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and to the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association.

We appreciate very much your consideration of our problems and I thank you again for your telephone call on September 3rd in response to our letter of August 21st.

If it might be helpful to giving you and others concerned a better understanding of our problems, which we think are shared by many others, I would be willing to come to Washington for a conference.

Sincerely yours, B. H. Smith -- President

Enclosures

NABORS TRAILERS, INC.

August 21, 1974

Sidney Williams -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: FMVSS 121 - Air Brake Systems, Docket #74-10, Notice 5

Dear Mr. Williams:

We are unable to determine from the subject Notice 5 and from the discussions and considerations that preceded it whether or not it is the intention of NHTSA that Logging Pole Trailers be considered "Heavy Hauler Trailers" within the definition of that category.

In one way of looking at it nearly all Logging Pole Trailers come within Characteristic (1) of the definition because the brake lines are designed to adapt to permitting the rear frame assembly of the pole trailer to slide on the pole or drawbar and thereby to adapt to extension or contraction of the effective length between the load bearing members. In another way of looking at it, pole trailers would not come within Characteristic (1) because there is no actual separation or extension of the vehicle frame. Actually, in pole trailers there is no frame as such connecting the front and rear load bearing members.

The one consistent and definitive characteristic of pole trailers, as we understand them, is that they consist of a front bolster that rests on the towing tractor and a rear bolster that rests on the trailer suspension and axles with the two connected with a pole on which the rear assembly can slide forward and backward.

In some logging operations the length between the front and rear bolsters is changed frequently, maybe daily. In some operations the length between the bolsters is changed only as the species or types of logs being hauled change. In some operations, on every unloaded trip the rear assembly is moved forward on the pole and is loaded on the truck to be hauled back into the woods. Since logging conditions and practices require different effective lengths between the front and rear bolsters and different problems with respect to the brake lines, practically all of our Logging Pole Trailers are rigged out with quick disconnectors for the brake and light lines at the rear assembly, and to that extent the rigging is similar to that on extendable platform trailers. The difficulties of maintaining good air line connections and unrestricted flow of air are certainly as great on pole trailers as on extendable frame trailers.

There are other inherent problems in applying and maintaining brakes on Logging Pole Trailers that in our opinion should be considered before there is a requirement upon trailer manufacturers to add anti-skid devices, spring loaded power chambers, dual or triple air reservoirs, and the other hardware that goes with the system. For example, up to now we have not been able to devise a way to put spring loaded power chambers on the axles of Logging Pole Trailers without swinging them under the axles. We definitely do not have sufficient clearance for putting the spring loaded power chambers over the axles with the suspensions and construction that we are using now. To put the (Illegible Word) chambers under the axles on pole trailers that are destined for the logging woods is, in our opinion, impracticable. The operators will not be able to keep the power chambers in place. The net result will be that they will knock them off or take them off the trailers and run the trailers without brakes. We run into similar but not insoluble problems with respect to installing additional air reservoirs and all of the other wiring and hardware required in an anti-skid system, but the trailers will have to be redesigned, they will be made substantially more expensive, and they will be less suited to their purpose.

Opinions have been expressed that we should simply assume that the definition of Heavy Hauler Trailers does embrace Logging Pole Trailers and that we should bother ourselves and our customers no more about the problem. We are not willing to leave it there because we cannot afford to be found in violation of the law and to be required to go back and add equipment which we did not furnish when the trailers were built. If we must put the anti-skid equipment on Logging Pole Trailers we must be getting ready for it in our designs and in our production methods, and we must be preparing our customers for the added cost and for the maintenance problems that will be inevitable.

Pole Trailers make up hardly more than 1% of the truck trailers that are manufactured. According to the Bureau of the Census Industrial Report for May, 1974, 189 pole trailers were shipped in May 1974, 214 in April 1974, and 177 in May 1973. For ourselves, the total volume in pole trailers is less than 300 units per year, but that is a substantial portion of our total volume and we are one of the largest suppliers of such trailers to the Southern lumber industry. Could you tell me exactly where we stand with respect to Logging Pole Trailers and MVSS 121?

Sincerely yours, B. H. Smith -- President

ID: 571-108--motorcycle rear lamp--Triumph Designs

ID: nht89-3.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/06/89

FROM: JOHN G. SIMS -- CHAMPION MOTOR COACH INC

TO: Robert F. Hellmuth -- Director Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS 217 Your Reference No. NEF-31RSh CIR 2996

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 01/26/90 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO JOHN G. SIMS -- CHMPION MOTOR COACH INC; REDBOOK A35; INTERPRETATION STANDARD 217

TEXT: Dear Mr. Hellmuth:

This is in response to your September 8, 1989 letter to Jim Nolin of our Imlay City, MI manufacturing division and a series of telephone conversations we have had with Roy Shannon of your office. This also serves as our defect and noncompliance repor t and proposed notification, in accordance with Parts 573 and 577.

After carefully reviewing our bus design, we have determined that we have not been properly labeling the passenger side exit door on our cut-away chassis buses as an "emergency exit" and we have not always been providing the necessary operating instru ctions for use of that exit. Our vehicle design has been based on the assumption that the door which is normally the main passenger entrance way or the passenger side OEM cab door would also serve as part of the required emergency exit requirements, how ever, we failed to mark the door accordingly. We, therefore, intend to voluntarily recall all affected buses in the manner described below.

The side mounted main passenger entrance door for our cut-away buses are one of six different designs, each of which provides over 536 sq. in. of exit area and which when properly marked, can serve as an emergency exit or is used in conjunction with a nother side door that can be the emergency exit. See enclosure 1. We have reviewed your charts 1 and 2 and we are in agreement with them except for chart 2 where you did not permit credit for 536 sq. in. provided by door type A (extended cab front door ) on the right side. If that credit is given then each of the identified "failures" would become "passes". We believe that if properly marked, the door will meet the requirements of "emergency exit" and therefore the credit should be given.

All cut-away buses built since 1984 and not accounted for on your charts have similar egress characteristics, specifically:

1) One emergency exit window with an open area in excess of 536 sq. in. on each side of the bus at the rear of the bus.

2) A rear emergency exit door or window with an area of at least 536 sq. in., or an emergency exit roof hatch with approximately 400 sq. in.

3) A left (driver's) side emergency exit front OEM cab door with greater than 536 sq. in.

4) A main passenger entrance/exit door with a minimum 536 sq. in. area, provided by one of the type doors described in enclosure 1. When the main passenger entrance/exit door is a rear door (designated C on enclosure 1) or a passenger side bi-fold do or in the body side (B), a OEM cab door is always provided.

Also, some buses had optional additional emergency exit windows installed at the customer's request, thereby providing at least two on each side of the bus, each with greater than 536 sq. in. opening.

The maximum seating capacity of any of these buses is 30 passengers so they will all meet the emergency exit area requirements when a passenger side door is treated as an emergency exit. Currently, all main passenger exit side doors are marked "exit" rather than "emergency exit" and none of the doors are provided with operating instructions except the rear door and the curved side door.

In addition to our cut-away buses, Champion has developed two new rail chassis buses: the "CTS/Challenger" floor plans with seating capacities ranging from 20 to 32 passengers, and the "CTS-Star" with capacity ranging from 31 to 38 passengers (see att ached brochures). The buses have the following egress characteristics:

1) One emergency exit window with an open area in excess of 536 sq. in. on each side of the bus at the rear of the bus.

2) A rear emergency exit window or roof escapt hatch with an area of at least 536 sq. in. for the window or 400 sq. in. for the hatch.

3) The CTS-Star has an additional emergency exit window with an open area in excess of 536 sq. in.

on each side of the bus towards the front of the bus.

4) Each bus has a main passenger entrance way which is marked "exit" rather than "emergency exit".

Based on the above analysis, it appears that we will need to conduct two separate recalls of buses. The first will be to recall all applicable cut-away buses in order to identify a passenger side door as an "emergency exit". That will involve provid ing a decal for the appropriate door which states "EMERGENCY EXIT", and a decal for each operating mechanism which will be placed on the door within six inches of the operating mechanism, except for the curved side door which already has operating instru ctions.

We have produced approximately 3,900 cut-away buses, of which we estimate approximately 900 do not need to be included in the recall because they were either equipped with optional added emergency exit windows or had 20 or fewer designated seating pos itions. We will prepare a list of each of the applicable cut-away buses and mail a letter and decals, to each owner of record, based on the letters a, b, and c given in enclosure 2.

The second recall will be for all CTS/Challenger buses that did not have optional additional emergency exit side windows in order to add additional emergency exits at both front sides. There are approximately 50 such buses and we will provide each ow ner of record a latter similar to that given in enclosure 3.

Two other issues raised in NHTSA's May 12, 1988 letter do not require any corrective action. The allegation that the driver door was not labeled with the words "emergency exit" is not correct. The label was located on the stanchion immediately behin d the driver's seat. It is our opinion that S5.5.1 of FMVSS 217 only requires that operating instructions be located within 6 inches of the operating mechanisms. The bases for that opinion include:

a) The words of the standard can be read that way.

b) There is no logical basis for tying in the location of "emergency exit" marking to the operating mechanisms.

c) The operating mechanisms are often located below shoulder level of seated passengers where the visibility of an "emergency exit" sign would be substantially reduced.

d) The more stringent (and clearer) requirement for school buses in S5.5.3 clearly permits separation

of the emergency exit sign and the operating instructions.

e) NHTSA's contractor called the marking "confusing" rather than in violation of the standard (Report No. 217-MSE-87-11-TR7122-11).

f) In NHTSA's 8/24/88 letter, NEF-31MPa, CIR 2996, our initial offer to relocate the emergency exit sign for clarification reasons was accepted by NHTSA as fully adequate even though the relocation would not move the sign to within 6 inches of the ope rating mechanism. Even though NHTSA now states that that letter was in error, the letter still indicates that some staff agreed with our position.

g) IN NHTSA's 6/12/84 letter, NEF-31RSh, CIR 2678.1, we were asked to supply details of "a) Location of each emergency exit identification. b) Operating instructions of the release mechanisms for the emergency exits and the distances of these instruc tions from the release mechanisms." It is plain from the way the question was worded that NHTSA considered that the required location of the emergency exit identification was separate from the location of the operating instructions and that only the latt er had to be within 6 inches of the operating mechanisms.

The other issue raised in the 5/12/88 letter was if the operating instructions for the side window emergency exits were legible to occupants standing in the aisle. However, it is our opinion that the legibility requirement of S5.5.2 applies only to t he "emergency exit" marking and not to the operating instructions. The bases for that opinion include:

a) The words of the standard can be read that way.

b) There is no practical reason to require the operating instructions to be legible until a person is about one arm's length away from the mechanisms.

c) The level of performance anticipated by the standard does not require the operating instructions to be visible even to someone in the adjacent seat, inasmuch as it is is permissible to place a sign that refers an occupant of the adjacent seat to th e operating instructions that may be located in the seat ahead.

d) Herr International, Inc., a major industry supplier of windows discussed this issue with Jeff Jiuseppe on October 23, 1989. Herr specifically stated the position that ". . . the legibility requirements of paragraph 5.5.2 require and apply to anoth er (other than operating instructions) label that identifies the emergency exit." Herr has reported to us that Jiuseppe agreed with that position along with Robert Kraus' concurrence.

Because of the above analysis, it is not our intention to include these two issues in the recalls we intend to initiate.

If further information is needed, please contact me. We will be prepared to send out our mailings on the recall upon approval from your office. The recall of the cut-away buses will be completed upon the mailing, and we will make appropriate reports to you on the progress of our repairs of the Challenger buses, as is required under the regulation.

Sincerely,

John G. Sims Governmental Affairs CHAMPION DOOR DESIGNS Door Door Operating Operational Designation Type Location Mechanism Instructions A Extended Cab OEM Door Pull handle Cab Handle and push door B Bi-fold Body None * C Rear Body RV Lock ** E Curved Side Body RV Lock *** F Single Leaf Cab Cleveland Pull handle Door Operator and push door G Bi-fold Cab Cleveland " Door Operator H Passenger- Cab OEM Door Pull handle side OEM Handle and Push door * Bi-fold door in body cannot be used for emergency exit because the operating mechanism is not located within the area required by the standard. However, whenever this door is used, a passenger side OEM cab door (H) is also used which can be made an emergency exit.

** Rear door, when used, has already been properly designated as emergency exit. Rear door used in addition to side passenger entrance/exit door (A,B,E,F, or G) and/or OEM cab door (H) which will be designated emergency exit.

*** Operating instructions already provided for RV locks.

Enclosure 1

Preliminary Draft

Letter to Cut-away Bus Owners For Main Passenger Door

Re: (Champion Serial Number )

Dear Champion Bus Customer or Dealer:

This notice is sent to you in accordance with the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Champion has determined that certain Champion buses including the one referenced above fail to conform to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, which has specific requirments for emergency exit capacity on buses. Your bus has sufficient egress capacity to meet those requriements but, unfortunately, the main passenger door was marked "exit" rather than "emergency exit" in the manner prescribed by the standard. Furthermore, operating instructions for the operatin g mechanisms of those doors were not provided. This may have some negative effect on a passenger's ability to egress the bus in the case of an emergency.

In order to remedy this noncompliance, we are providing you with an "emergency exit" decal that must be permanently affixed to the inside glass of the main passenger entrance/exit door. We are also providing a decal which provides the operating instr uctions for the operating mechanisms. The decal must be placed within 6 inches of where the mechanism connects to that door.

No further action is required. If you feel this remedy is inadequate, you may submit a complaint to the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 30590, or call the toll-free Auto Safety Hotline at 800-424-9393.

We apologize for any inconvenience this matter may cause you and we thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

Jim Nolin General Manager Commercial Vehicle Division

Enclosure 2

Letter a

Preliminary Draft

Letter to Cut-away Bus Owners For OEM Cab Doors

Re: (Champion Serial Number )

Dear Champion Bus Customer or Dealer: This notice is sent to you in accordance with the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Champion has determined that certain Champion buses including the one referenced above fail to conform to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, which has specific requirements for emergency exit capacity on buses . Your bus has sufficient egress capacity to meet those requirements but, unfortunately, one of the passenger side doors was not marked "emergency exit" in the manner prescribed by the standard. Furthermore, operating instructions for the operating mec hanisms for that door were not provided. This may have some negative effect on a passenger's ability to egress the bus in the case of an emergency.

In order to remedy this noncompliance, we are providing you with an "emergency exit" decal that must be permanently affixed to the inside panel of the OEM cab door. We are also providing a decal which provides the operating instructions for the opera ting mechanisms. The decal must be placed within 6 inches of the door handle.

No further action is required. If you feel this remedy is inadequate, you may submit a complaint to the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 30590, or call the toll-free Auto Safety Hotline at 800-424-9393.

We apologize for any inconvenience this matter may cause you and we thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

Jim Nolin General Manager Commercial Vehicle Division

Enclosure 2

Letter b

Preliminary Draft

Letter to Cut-away Bus Owners For Curved Side Passenger Door

Re: (Champion Serial Number )

Dear Champion Bus Customer or Dealer:

This notice is sent to you in accordance with the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Champion has determined that certain Champion buses including the one referenced above fail to conform to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, which has specific requirements for emergency exit capacity on buses . Your bus has sufficient egress capacity to meet those requirements but, unfortunately, the main passenger door was marked "exit" rather than "emergency exit" in the manner prescribed by the standard. This may have some negative effect on a passenger' s ability to egress the bus in the case of an emergency.

In order to remedy this noncompliance, we are providing you with an "emergency exit" decal that must be permanently affixed to the inside glass of the main passenger entrance/exit door.

No further action is required. If you feel this remedy is inadequate, you may submit a complaint to the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 30590, or call the toll-free Auto Safety Hotline at 800-424-9393.

We apologize for any inconvenience this matter may cause you and we thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

Jim Nolin General Manager Commercial Vehicle Division

Enclosure 2

Letter c

Preliminary Draft

Letter to Challenger Bus Owners

Re: (Champion Serial No. )

Dear Champion Bus Customer or Dealer:

This notice is sent to you in accordance with the requirement of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Champion Motor Coach, Inc. has determined that certain CTS/Challenger buses, including the one referenced above, fail to conform to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, which requires that a certain amount o f area for emergency exit be provided for each designated seating position on the bus. Champion's design was two emergency exit windows located on each side of the bus but several of the CTS/Challenger buses were erroneously produced with only one such window per side. The reduced emergency exit capacity may restrict passenger's ability to evacuate the bus in the case of emergency.

Champion will remedy this noncompliance without charge to you by replacing front windows on both sides of the bus with emergency exit windows, and provide the proper markings and operating mechanisms. This work will only take a few hours of time and will not affect the appearance or utility of the vehicles.

Please contact your selling dealer to arrange for the work to be done. The dealer should already be stocked with the necessary parts, or if not, we will provide him with those parts within 10 days of his request.

If you feel this remedy is inadequate, you may submit a complaint to the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 30590, or call the toll-free Auto Safety Hotline at 800-424-9393.

We apologize for any inconvenience this matter may cause you and we thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

Jim Nolin General Manager Commercial Vehicle Division

Enclosure 3

ID: perea

Gilbert A. Perea, State Transportation Director
New Mexico Department of Education
School Transportation Unit
Education Building
300 Don Gaspar
Santa Fe, NM 87501-2786

Dear Mr. Perea:

This responds to your letter asking about the modification of your large school buses (school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of over 10,000 pounds) by the installation of a new seating system that has an integral lap and shoulder belt system. I regret the delay in responding.

You explain that an equipment manufacturer, Busbelts Development Corporation (BDC), has been promoting its seating systems for school buses in New Mexico. You enclose photographs of the BDC product and copies of material provided by BDC. The seating systems appear to be standard school bus bench seats that have been modified to incorporate an integrated lap and shoulder belt system. The shoulder belt portion of the system attaches to the top of the school bus seat back. You state that Mr. Gary H. Murphy of BDC has informed you that "all of the required tests have been completed to conform to applicable [FMVSSs] in a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration certified and approved testing Lab." ⁽¹⁾ Further, a BDC brochure states that its system "enhances and complies with compartmentalization . . . ."

In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you asked that we respond to four questions. Each question concerns the safety of the BDC system and whether a school bus that has had its original seats replaced with the BDC seating systems would continue to meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. Our answers are provided below. In addressing those questions, it might be helpful to have some background information concerning seat belts on school buses.

In response to the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974, we issued a number of safety standards under our Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.) to improve protection to school bus passengers during crashes. One of these standards was Standard No. 222, which provides for passenger crash protection through a concept called "compartmentalization." Prior to issuance of Standard No. 222, we found that the school bus seat was a significant factor contributing to injury. We found that seats failed the passengers in three principal respects: by being too weak; too low; and too hostile. In response, we developed requirements to improve the performance of school bus seats and the overall crash protection of school buses. Those requirements comprise the "compartmentalization" approach we adopted for providing high levels of crash protection to school bus passengers.

Compartmentalization is directed toward ensuring that passengers are surrounded by high-backed, well-padded seats that both cushion and contain the children in a crash. If a seat is not compartmentalized by a seat back in front of it, compartmentalization must be provided by a restraining barrier. The seats and restraining barriers must be strong enough to maintain their integrity in a crash yet flexible enough to be capable of deflecting in a manner which absorbs the energy of the occupant. They must meet specified height requirements and be constructed, by use of substantial padding or other means, so that they provide protection when they are impacted by the head and legs of a passenger.

It is helpful to bear in mind the following highlights about compartmentalization:

1. Compartmentalization provides effective occupant crash protection, minimizes the hostility of the crash environment and limits the range of movement of an occupant, without using seat belts;
2. Compartmentalization ensures that high levels of crash protection are provided to each passenger independent of any action on the part of the occupant; and,
3. Seat belts are needed on passenger cars and other family vehicles and on small school buses (school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less) because the crash pulse, or deceleration, experienced by the lighter vehicles is more severe than that of larger vehicles in similar collisions. Large school buses are inherently safer vehicles because they are larger and heavier than the vast majority of the other vehicles on the road. In addition, occupants in large school buses sit above the forces that are typically imparted to the bus by smaller impacting vehicles during a crash. The training and qualification requirements for school bus drivers and the extra care taken by other road users in their vicinity add to the safety of school buses.

With this background in mind, we now turn to your questions.

1. Does the Busbelts Development Corporation's integrated shoulder belt and/or occupant restraint system meet all applicable FMVSSs?

Because the BDC system is an item of equipment that is sold separately from a school bus, there are almost no safety standards that directly apply to it. Our safety standards for school buses apply to new, completed vehicles, not to separate components systems such as the bench seat and integrated belt system. As such, Standard No. 222 does not apply to the BDC product, assuming the product is sold in the aftermarket and is not sold as part of a new school bus. Our standard for seat belt anchorage strength (Standard No. 210) also applies to new, completed vehicles. A representation that a product meets crash protection standards that do not apply is misleading.⁽²⁾

The only safety standard that applies to the aftermarket product is Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. Standard No. 209 specifies strength, ease-of-use and other requirements for seat belt webbing, buckles, and other components. Section S4.1(c) of Standard No. 209 requires that a lap-and-shoulder belt system (a "Type 2 seat belt assembly") must provide upper torso restraint without shifting the pelvic restraint into the abdominal region. Some of the photographs you provided depict children wearing the Type 2 seat belt with the lap portion in the middle of their bodies, above the pelvic region. Placement of the lap portion of the seat belt in the abdominal area of a passenger is prohibited by S4.1(c). A belt positioned over the abdominal area will load the abdomen in a crash, resulting in a greater likelihood of injury to the abdomen and surrounding organs.

It appears from some of the photographs that the lap belt is pulled on to the abdominal area of some of the children by a device that adjusts the positioning of the lap and the shoulder belts on small children. We refer to these types of devices as "belt positioning devices." Due in part to our concerns about positioning a lap belt over a child's abdominal area and about how some devices introduce excessive slack into the shoulder belt, we recently began a rulemaking action to regulate these devices. We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to require belt positioning devices to be labeled with a warning not to use them with children under a certain size (e.g., a child smaller than the average 6-year-old), and not to have the lap belt positioned over the child's abdomen. A copy of our NPRM is enclosed for your information.

If the BDC system were installed on new school buses, the vehicle would have to meet Standard No. 222 and the other school bus standards with the product installed. Without testing a vehicle, we cannot make a positive determination of whether the standard could be met with the product installed. However, as explained below, we believe that a new school bus may not be able to meet the standard with the seating system. We have other safety concerns as well, apart from whether the requirements of Standard No. 222 could be met.

2. Would retrofitting a school bus with the Busbelt integrated shoulder belt system make the school bus no longer meet Standard No. 222?

We believe it is possible that the incorporation of a shoulder belt into existing school bus seats would reduce the benefits of compartmentalization. As we explained in the background section, Standard No. 222's compartmentalization requirements rely on the school bus seat backs to help cushion and contain the occupants in a crash. Each seat back protects not only the occupant of that seating position, but also the occupant seated rearward of that seating position. If a shoulder belt were attached to a school bus seat back, the belt may prevent the seat back from deflecting forward in the manner required by S5.1.3 of Standard No. 222 to protect the rearward passenger. In other words, in a crash the seat back will not perform in a manner that would provide protection to an unrestrained passenger.

Even if the seat back deflects as required by Standard No. 222, it is possible that compartmentalization could be compromised by the attachment of a shoulder belt to a school bus seat back. These relate to possible problems resulting from a load application of two different forces on the school bus seat in a severe crash. In a forward collision, a passenger restrained by the shoulder belt would load the belt at an earlier point in time than the point at which the seat back is impacted by an unbelted occupant seated directly rearward of the seat. The forward force on the seat back from the shoulder belt would tilt the seat back forward prior to the impact of the rearward unbelted occupant against the seat back. The unbelted occupant would ramp up the tilted seat back in the crash, rather than be contained in what had been a compartmentalized space. That occupant not contained in the compartment would be at greater risk of injury due to possible ejection and/or impacts against hard or unforgiving surfaces.⁽³⁾ Both the head of the unrestrained passenger and the head of the restrained passenger could impact, possibly injuring both children.

The head of the unrestrained passenger could impact the head of the restrained passenger, resulting in possible injury to the two passengers.

Compartmentalization could be compromised in other ways as well. The seat backs of school buses must meet head protection requirements specified in S5.3.1. The performance requirements in S5.3.1 generally lead manufacturers to pad their seat backs with energy-absorbing foam and to ensure that there are no hard structures in the seat back that can cause head injuries to the passenger rearward of the seat back in a crash. Anchoring a shoulder belt to the seat back may require the installation of rigid components, which may cause the seat back to no longer meet S5.3.1.

The seat backs must also meet leg protection requirements specified in S5.3.2 of Standard No. 222. The requirements are generally met by padding and other measures to protect passengers' knees as they impact seat backs in a crash. Apparently BDC modifies the school bus seat by installing a cross bar and D-ring structure to mount the belts and by installing a steel lap and shoulder belt retraction system within the seat back. The knee and leg protection requirements of the standard must continue to be met with the retrofitted components in the seat back.

In addition to the issues discussed above, care should be taken to ensure that passengers will not be entangled in the shoulder belt webbing material in a crash. Shoulder belts that have a considerable amount of webbing around the head and neck area of children pose a risk of strangulation or other neck injuries.

For the above reasons, we believe that a school bus seating system with an integrated lap and shoulder belt system might reduce the crash protection provided by compartmentalization. ⁽⁴⁾ There is limited information about how an integrated lap and shoulder belt system on a school bus seat would perform in a crash or affect the current safety of school buses. We are undertaking a comprehensive school bus safety research program to evaluate better ways of retaining occupants in the seating compartment. As part of that program, we will be looking into possible ways of redesigning the school bus seat as well as integrating a lap and shoulder belt into the seat that is compatible with compartmentalization. Also, we plan on conducting some research on extra padding, not only for the seat itself but also for the bus side wall. Information from this research program will help researchers better understand and develop the next generation of occupant protection systems for school buses.

3. Would retrofitting a school bus with an integrated shoulder belt system make inoperative the bus's compliance with FMVSS 222?

Section 30122 of our statute prohibits a motor vehicle manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from installing any modification that "make[s] inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . . ." Any person in the aforementioned categories that makes inoperative the compliance of a device or element of design on the vehicle would be subject to fines of up to $1,100 per violation and to injunctive relief.

The compartmentalization requirements of Standard No. 222 include requirements that a protective seat back must be provided to protect an unrestrained passenger. We believe that replacing a school bus seat with a seating system that has a torso belt is likely to make inoperative an element of design installed as part of the compartmentalization concept. We are concerned about the continued compliance of the bus with Standard No. 222's seat deflection and head and leg protection requirements. We are concerned about the ability of the bus to continue to provide required crash protection to children regardless of whether a belt is used.

4. If a school bus were retrofitted with the Busbelt integrated shoulder belt system, will the school bus continue to meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards?

Compartmentalization is intended to restrain passengers in a crash regardless of whether they buckle up. A torso belt may reduce that level of safety to an unbelted passenger. As previously stated, we have concerns about a product that might interfere with the ability of a school bus to protect unbelted occupants. We will be evaluating integrated lap and shoulder belt systems in our school bus research program. The program will provide information that will help us better assess the merits, costs and feasibility of having integrated seat belts on school buses.

Before closing, we wish to address a statement that BDC made in its marketing literature in support of seat belts on large school buses. BDC states that its "dynamic test data" shows that in a 30 mile per hour (mph) school bus crash, an unbelted occupant "suffered fatal head injuries (2000 HIC level) when his/her head came in contact with a standard school bus seat." These test data apparently result from computer simulations conducted for BDC. The data do not reflect the data we have obtained in actual crash testing of school buses. Actual crash test data from a 30 mph barrier crash conducted by NHTSA indicate that HIC measurements recorded by calibrated test dummies are all well below the 1,000 threshold level.

On a final note, we would like to point out that many of your newer school buses may still be under the school bus manufacturer's warranty. Before you decide to retrofit any school bus with any seat belt, it may be prudent for you to share BDC's information with the school bus manufacturer, and request a determination whether the school bus manufacturer will continue to honor warranties if the BDC seat belts are placed on school buses.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:222
d.10/28/99

^1. We note that this statement is misleading. NHTSA does not "certify" or "approve" test laboratories or facilities to conduct compliance testing or for any other purpose.

^2. Regardless of whether a safety standard applies to the product, our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30120 requires manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle replacement equipment to provide remedies if it is determined their products have safety-related defects. If it were determined that the seating systems had a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would have to notify all purchasers and repair or replace the defective item without charge.

^3. Another concern associated generally to the use of lap and lap and shoulder belts on large school buses relates to the potential for seat failure resulting from combined stresses exerted simultaneously or in close succession on a school bus seat by: (1) the belted occupant of the seat, where the seat belt is attached to the seat frame; and (2) an unbelted occupant, seated directly rearward of the seat, impacting the seat back. In a severe crash, the combined force applications on a particular seat resulting from a belted occupant and an unbelted occupant in the rearward seat could increase the likelihood of seat failure or seat deformation. We do not believe that school buses are frequently involved in the type of severe frontal crashes where this phenomenon is likely to occur. However, there is a risk that compartmentalization could be compromised in this circumstance.

^4. The concerns discussed above relating to the compatibility of compartmentalization with existing designs of lap and shoulder belts also apply to the situation where a belt system is retrofitted to existing school bus seats (i.e., where the original bench seat is modified but not replaced).

ID: 571.108 -- AMA -- Schaye--front color changing light

Paul Schaye
CEO, Pedestrian Safety Solutions
245 Park Avenue, 41st Floor
New York, NY 10167

Dear Mr. Schaye:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of whether your auxiliary lamp, the Auto Motion Alert (“your product”), is permissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment.  Because your product would be installed as aftermarket equipment, not as original equipment, and would not replace original equipment, and because FMVSS No. 108 applies only to equipment installed as original equipment or that replaces original equipment, we have interpreted your request as asking whether the installation of your product is permissible under the “make inoperative” provision of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Safety Act).  The Safety Act prohibits most automotive businesses from installing aftermarket lighting equipment if doing so would take the vehicle out of compliance with FMVSS No. 108.  For auxiliary lamps, the primary restriction imposed by FMVSS No. 108 is that the lamps cannot impair the effectiveness of a vehicle’s required lighting equipment.

We have tentatively concluded that your product is unlikely to impair the effectiveness of required lighting equipment, and is therefore unlikely to violate the “make inoperative” provision.  However, we wish to emphasize that the existence of impairment would depend on the context in which your lamp is used, and thus must be determined on a case-by-case basis.  It is the responsibility of the business installing your product to determine whether doing so constitutes a “make inoperative” violation. We explain our reasoning below.

Description of your product
You describe your product as a lamp that is designed to be installed above a vehicle’s front license plate using the two top mounting screws.  You state that the purpose of installing the lamps on a vehicle is to communicate to road users ahead of the vehicle whether the vehicle is decelerating, accelerating, or maintaining a constant speed. You state that your product consists of a strip of amber and white LEDs, although you do not provide the exact photometric intensity.  Either the white or amber LEDs are activated, depending upon the underlying condition.  You state that the white LEDs are activated and steadily burn while the vehicle is accelerating or travelling at a constant speed, and that the amber LEDs are activated and steadily burn while the vehicle is decelerating or stopped.  The LEDs are actuated by a microcontroller that detects the vehicle’s acceleration using internal accelerometers.  We also understand, based on our communications with you, that the brightness of the LEDs, the threshold levels of acceleration or deceleration activating the LEDs can be controlled through software, although it is our understanding that the product will be sold as a sealed unit that is not adjustable by the end user. You state that, although the LEDs activate independently of other vehicle systems (including the braking system), your product is powered by either a direct connection to the vehicle’s battery, or a 12-volt DC wire supply that is live when the vehicle is turned on.  The exterior housing consists of a weather-resistant polymer enclosure with gasket type seal. 

Applicable Requirements
Because you state that you intend to sell your product aftermarket, the primary potential restriction on its installation is the Safety Act’s “make inoperative” provision. 49 U.S.C.           § 30122.  The “make inoperative” provision states that manufacturers, distributors, dealers, rental companies and motor vehicle repair businesses may not “knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard” promulgated under the Safety Act.  This means that the businesses subject to the “make inoperative” provision would be prohibited from installing your product on a vehicle if doing so would take the vehicle out of compliance with any FMVSS.  The “make inoperative” provision does not apply vehicle owners, and these owners are not precluded from modifying their vehicle by NHTSA’s statutes or regulations.  State and local laws, however, may impact whether an owner may use a vehicle they have modified in a particular jurisdiction.

NHTSA considers the installation of an aftermarket lamp to violate the “make inoperative” provision if the installation of the same lamp as original equipment would violate FMVSS No. 108.[1]  As a non-required (“auxiliary”) lamp, your product is not required to meet any of the performance requirements in FMVSS No. 108 that it would need to meet if it were installed as original equipment.[2]  However, your product would be prohibited under FMVSS No. 108 (and thus, would violate the “make inoperative” provision) if it would “impair[] the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard.” FMVSS No. 108, S6.2.1.    

Because the existence of impairment is, in part, a function of the context in which an auxiliary lamp is used, impairment must be determined on a case-by-case basis.  If a business subject to the “make inoperative” provision installs an aftermarket auxiliary lamp, that entity is responsible for determining whether doing so causes impairment.  If NHTSA determines that a business to which the “make inoperative” provision applies has impaired the effectiveness of required lamps, that business would be subject to a fine of up to $22,329 per violation.[3]  

Discussion
Based on the information you provided in your interpretation request, we have tentatively concluded that your product, if configured and installed in conformance with the restrictions described in letter, is unlikely to impair the effectiveness of a vehicle’s required lighting, and its installation on a vehicle would be unlikely to constitute a “make inoperative” violation.  There are four aspects of auxiliary lamps that are relevant to impairment: brightness (i.e., photometric intensity), color, location, and activation pattern.  What follows is a brief explanation of NHTSA’s safety concerns for each of these characteristics, along with examples of instances in which the agency would consider an auxiliary lamp to violate the impairment prohibition.  It should be noted that determining whether an auxiliary lamp impairs the effectiveness of required lamps involves a holistic assessment of the context in which the auxiliary lamps are used, and the examples provided are not exhaustive.  Thus, although this letter discusses these four characteristics separately, they should not be considered in isolation, nor should they be considered an exhaustive list of all the considerations that should be taken into account when making an impairment determination.

Brightness (Photometric Intensity)
NHTSA interprets the impairment provision to prohibit auxiliary lamps that are so bright as to obscure or distract from a vehicle’s required lamps.  For example, NHTSA has in the past stated that auxiliary lamps that were so bright as to “mask” adjacent required turning signal lamps would be prohibited due to impairment.[4]   While you do not state the precise brightness of your product, you state that its brightness “is limited and so would not impair or mask the vehicle’s headlamps or turn signals.”  Although the extent to which your product would interfere with a vehicle’s required lighting may vary depending on the design and performance of a particular vehicle’s required lamps, we do not believe your product would impair the effectiveness of a vehicle’s required lamps on the basis of brightness if its photometric intensity is sufficiently limited such that your product’s LEDs are noticeably dimmer than the vehicle’s required head lamps and front turn signal lamps.

Color
NHTSA interprets the “impairment” provision to prohibit auxiliary lamps that are colors the agency believes are likely to cause confusion to other road users.  For auxiliary lamps located on the front of the vehicle, colors that could cause confusion include red (which could be confused for a tail lamp), green (which could be confused for a traffic signal), and blue (which could be confused for a law enforcement vehicle).  By contrast, we have consistently said that amber and white lamps are permissible on the front of the vehicle.[5]  Because your product illuminates as either amber or white, depending on the underlying condition, we do not believe your product would impair a vehicle’s required lamps on the basis of color.

Location
NHTSA interprets the “impairment” provision to prohibit auxiliary lamps that are mounted in locations that cause them to interfere with the ability of a vehicle’s required lamps to achieve their purpose. For example, NHTSA has stated in the past that auxiliary lamps placed too close to FMVSS No. 108-compliant identification lamps would be prohibited because they may confuse other road users.[6]  The agency has long maintained that highway traffic safety is enhanced by the familiarity of drivers with established lighting schemes, which facilitates their ability to instantly recognize the meaning the lamps convey and respond accordingly. Therefore, any auxiliary lighting on the front of a vehicle must be located such that it would not interfere or be confused with other required lamps.  Your product is designed to be no wider than a license plate.  In the case where a license plate holder is mounted at the centerline of the vehicle at a lower mounting height than the vehicle’s required lamps, we think your product would, in most cases, be unlikely to interfere with the required lamps’ ability to achieve their function based on proximity.  However, we note that if a vehicle’s front license plate were located somewhere other than the centerline of the front bumper, and especially if it were located near a vehicle’s required lamps, it would be likely that the installation of your product on the front license plate holder would cause impairment.  Our determination in this letter that your product would be unlikely to impair the effectiveness of required lamps on the basis of mounting location assumes that your product is mounted on front centerline of the vehicle.  If your product were mounted somewhere other than the front centerline of the vehicle, we believe that it would be more likely to impair the effectiveness of the vehicle’s required lamps.

Activation Pattern
NHTSA interprets FMVSS No. 108 to require that all auxiliary lamps be “steady burning,” with the sole exception being auxiliary lamps that supplement required lamps that flash, such as turn signals.[7]  While this requirement has been relatively straight-forward to apply in the past, the introduction of new, programable lighting devices (such as your product) that are intended to communicate driver intent to other road users, has convinced the agency that it is necessary to clarify the meaning of “steady burning.”  To this end, we are clarifying here that the requirement that auxiliary lamps be steady burning does not mean that an auxiliary lamp is prohibited from being activated or deactivated automatically.  Rather, it means that the lamp must be steady burning when activated, and that the event that triggers its activation or deactivation (in this case, the vehicle’s rate of acceleration or deceleration exceeding a certain minimum threshold) cannot be so frequent or random that the lamp would distract or confuse other road users.  For example, a lamp that activated and deactivated on an extremely short time interval due to sensitivity to slight changes in the underlying conditions, would not be considered steady-burning.[8]  More traditional examples of lamps that are not steady-burning include, but are not limited to, strobes and turn signals.  By contrast, an auxiliary lamp that gradually changes in intensity based on ambient lighting conditions may be considered steady burning.[9] 

We have determined that your product would likely be considered steady burning because the event that triggers the activation of the LEDs—the deceleration of the vehicle—is likely not something that occurs so frequently or randomly that it would cause your product to appear to flash, which could confuse or distract other road users.  We note that this determination rests on the assumption that your product’s accelerometer is calibrated not to be overly sensitive to small changes in acceleration.    

We acknowledge that this interpretation supersedes some of our prior, more restrictive interpretations of the concept of “impairment.”  In particular, this letter specifically supersedes our previous interpretation concluding that all auxiliary lamps used to communicate “non-standard signals” (i.e., information other than what is communicated by required lamps) to other drivers would categorically impair the effectiveness of a vehicle’s required lamps.[10]  We reiterate, however, that auxiliary lamps may not be used to communicate non-standard signals (or, in fact, any signals) if doing so impairs the effectiveness of required lighting. 

Other Considerations
You should be aware that, even if your product is permissible under FMVSS No. 108 and the “make inoperative” provision, it is possible that State and local laws or restrictions may apply to your product. You may wish to consult the State and local transportation authorities in the areas you intend to market your product to make sure it is permissible under these laws. 

Finally, regardless of whether your product is subject to the restrictions of FMVSS No. 108 or the “make inoperative” provision, please be aware that if you or this agency finds your product to contain a safety-related defect after you market the product, you are responsible for conducting a notice and recall campaign as required under 49 U.S.C. §§ 30118-30120.

If you have further questions, please contact Daniel Koblenz of my staff at 202-366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jonathan C. Morrison
Chief Counsel

Dated: 9/9/19

Ref: FMVSS No. 108

[1] E.g., Letter to Timothy C. Murphy (Nov. 1, 2004), available at https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/GF006332.html.

[2] We note that auxiliary lamps that use plastic optical materials must comply with S14.1.2, and are subject to various other minor restrictions that are not relevant here.

[3] See 49 CFR part 578.

[4] E.g., Letter to Mark Wallach (Oct. 17, 2006), available at https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/Wallach.3.htm.

[5] E.g., Letter to Anthony M. Cooke (Oct. 19, 2006), available at https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/Legg1.htm.

[6] E.g., Letter to [REDACTED] (Jan. 21, 2004), available at https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/GF007705.html.

[7] Prior to 2007, FMVSS No. 108 included an explicit requirement that, with the exception of certain types of required lamps (e.g., turn signal lamps), all lamps on a vehicle, including auxiliary lamps, must be steady burning.  In 2007, NHTSA implemented an administrative reorganization of FMVSS No. 108 which, among other things, converted the blanket “steady burning” requirement (and its exceptions) into individual activation requirements for each type of required lamp.  See 72 FR 68234 (Dec. 4, 2007).  Although the reorganized rule no longer includes a blanket “steady burning” requirement, NHTSA stated in the preamble to the reorganized rule that its “rewrite of FMVSS No. 108 is considered administrative in nature because the standard’s existing requirements and obligations are not being increased, decreased, or substantively modified.” Moreover, NHTSA continues to believe that flashing auxiliary lamps would impair the effectiveness of required lamps by distracting or confusing other road users.

[8] E.g., Letter to Timothy C. Murphy (Nov. 1, 2004), available at https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/GF006332.html.

[9] E.g., Letter to Ian Goldstein (July 21, 1998), available at https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/18164.ztv.html.

[10] E.g., Letter to Kerry Legg (Feb. 21, 2008), available at https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/07-001583as.htm.

ID: aiam3965

Dear Mr. Cooney: This responds to your letter to Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff, askin several questions about the removal of the DOT numbers from the sidewall of tires. In a February 5, 1985 telephone conversation with Mr. Kratzke, you stated that the answers to all of your questions except number 7 should address the situation only for tire dealers and distributors. With that limitation, I have set forth below the answers to each of your questions in the order presented in your letter.; 1. *Under what circumstances, if any, may a DOT number be removed fro a passenger car tire?*; There are no circumstances in which a tire dealer or distributor ca legally remove a DOT number from a passenger car tire. It is unclear when you refer to a 'DOT number' whether you are referring to just the tire identification number required to be on every new and retreaded tire by 49 CFR Part 574, or that identification number together with the DOT symbol. The DOT symbol is required to appear on all new tires for highway use and retreaded passenger car tires as a certification by the manufacturer or retreader that the tire fully complies with the applicable Federal safety standard.; In any case, Standard No. 109, *New pneumatic tires - passenger cars (49 CFR S571.109) applies to all new pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars manufactured after 1948. Section S4.3.1 requires that the symbol DOT be on the tire, and section S4.3.1 requires that the tire identification number be on the tire. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a)(2)(A)) specifies '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 an...item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard...' By removing the DOT identification number, a dealer or distributor would be knowingly rendering inoperative an element of design on the tire which is included on the tire in compliance with Standard No. 109. Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a penalty of up to $1000 for each violation of Section 108. This agency would consider each tire from which the DOT number had been removed to be a separate violation.; 2. *If the answer to question 1 is none, is there any situation in which a passenger car tire can b sold for farm or off- road use provided that the DOT number has been removed?*; There is no situation in which a passenger car tire with the DOT numbe removed can be sold for any purpose. Section S6 of Standard No. 109 reads as follows:; S6 *Nonconforming tires*. No tire that is designed for use on passenge cars and manufactured on or after October 1, 1972, but does not conform to all the requirements of this standard, shall be sold, offered for sale, introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce, or imported into the United States, for any purpose.; A passenger car tire without the DOT number does not conform to al requirements of the standard, so its sale for any purpose is expressly prohibited. A violation of this section would subject the seller to a potential penalty of up to $1000 for each nonconforming tire sold.; 3. *Under what circumstances can tires for use on motor vehicles othe than passenger cars have the DOT number removed and the tires sold for off-road or farm use only?*; This is really a two part question. Again, there are *no* circumstance in which a tire dealer or distributor can legally remove the DOT number from these tires. Standard No. 119, *New pneumatic tires for motor vehicles other than passenger cars* (49 CFR 571.119) applies to these tires. Section S6.5(a) requires the DOT symbol to be on those tires, while section S6.5(b) requires the tire identification number to be on the tires. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits tire dealers and distributors for removing those symbols from the tire, and the penalty for removing those symbols is up to $1000 for every tire from which the symbols are removed.; Section 108(a)(2)(A) also prohibits manufacturers from removing DO numbers from tires and then selling the tires to distributors as tires for off-road use. It is theoretically possible that a tire dealer or distributor could acquire a small quantity of tires from which the DOT number had been removed by a party other than a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business. Assuming that a tire dealer or distributor did acquire some of these tires from which the DOT number had been removed, the tires could be sold for off-road use only. This is because Standard No. 119 has no comparable provision to section S6 of Standard No. 109. However, these tires may never legally be sold for used on the public roads (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)). A tire dealer or distributor who acquires tires from which the DOT number has been removed would be well advised to have some written statement to that effect on the sales slip. The purpose of such statement would be to prove that it was not the tire dealer or distributor who removed those numbers. When selling these tires for off-road use, the dealer or distributor should have some means of proving that he or she sold these tires with the caveat that they could only be used off-road. Either of your suggestions in question 4 (noting off-road use only on the sales slip or having the customer sign a document that the tires will only be used off-road) would be helpful for the dealer or distributor.; 4. *If a tire can be sold as described in Question 3, what must a tir distributer or dealer do to sell a tire?*; As noted above, either of your suggestions would be helpful for th dealer or distributor selling tires exclusively for off-road use. What the dealer must be able to do when selling these tires is show that he or she was not selling tires which do not comply with Standard No. 119 for use on the public roads.; 5. *If a tire in Question 4 is sold with no-highway use intended an the customer uses it on the highway, will the tire dealer or distributor be held in violation of the provision provided he met the requirements for noting that the tire was sold for non-highway use only?*; If a tire dealer or distributor can show that he or she did not remov the DOT numbers from the tires and that he or she sold the tires with the express understanding that the tires could not be used on the public roads, the dealer or distributor would not have violated any Federal requirements.; 6. *Is it possible that if the tire in Question 5 fails on the highwa and causes property or personal injury as a result that the tire dealer or distributor could be held liable for the damages or injuries? Even if he did not mount the tire on a rim for the customer?* This is a question of state law, which I cannot answer. However, I can say that it would be helpful for the dealer or distributor to have some proof that the customer was clearly told that these tires did not comply with the applicable Federal safety standard and could not be used on the public roads.; 7. *Who, if anyone, is allowed to remove DOT numbers?* a) A tire manufacturer may remove DOT numbers from its tires, as a wa of showing those tires do not satisfy the applicable standard Once a manufacturer does this, this tires may not legally be sold.; b) A retreader may remove the DOT numbers on the casing he or she i retreading. The retreader is generally required to mark its own identification number on each tire it retreads.; c) Once a tire has been sold for purposes other than resale, any perso or entity, *other than a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business,* may remove any or all markings from the tire.; 8. *If a retreader is allowed to remove DOT numbers, is he required t replace the removed number with his assigned DOT shop code number?*; Generally speaking, the retreader is required to permanently mark tire identification number on the sidewall of each tire it retreads. 49 CFR 574.5 specifies: 'Each tire retreader...shall conspicuously label one sidewall of each tire he retreads by permanently molding or branding into or onto the sidewall...a tire identification number...' There are two minor exceptions to this provision. A tire retreader who retreads tires for his own use is not required to mark a tire identification number on those tires. Also tires which are retreaded exclusively for mileage contract purchasers are not required to bear the retreader's tire identification number if the tire contains the phrase 'for mileage contract use only' molded into or onto the tire sidewall. In all other instances, a retreader must mark its tire identification number on each tire it retreads.; 9. *Tire definition: since many tire sizes and styles are use interchangeably from passenger cars to light trucks and vans, especially mini-vans, how will the DOT decide whether Standard No. 109 or 119 applies to a case of DOT number removal and subsequent sale for off-road use?*; In the process of certifying their tires, manufacturers indicat whether that tire size is designated primarily for use on passenger cars or primarily for use on light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles (vans). This is occasionally done by an individual manufacturer for a particular tire size, but is most often done through the publications of standardization organizations. (A standardization organization is a voluntary association composed of representatives of each of the member tire companies. The purpose of these standardization organization is to establish and promulgate sound engineering standards for tires, rims, and their allied parts.) The agency uses these listings to determine whether a tire is certified for compliance with Standard No. 109 or No. 119. If you have any questions about particular tire sizes, you may wish to contact the American standardization organization, The Tire an Rim Association, at 3200 West Market Street, Akron, Ohio 44313.; 10. *Since DOT requires certain information to appear on the sidewal of the tire, whether passenger car or other type, what, if anything can be removed from the sidewall?*; A tire dealer or distributor can never legally remove any of th required information from the sidewall of tires. In the case of passenger car tires, the following information is required to appear on the sidewall: The size designation, maximum permissible inflation pressure, maximum load rating, the generic name of each cord material used in the plies of the tire, the actual number of plies in the sidewall and in the tread, the words 'tubeless' or 'tube type', the word 'radial' if the tire is a radial tire, the DOT symbol, the name of the manufacturer or the brand name, and the identification number. In the case of tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars, the following information is required to appear on the sidewall: the DOT symbol, the tire identification number, the tire size designation, the maximum load rating and corresponding inflation pressure, the speed restriction of the tire if 55 mph or less, the actual number of plies and the composition of the ply cord material in the sidewall and in the tread, the word 'tubeless' or tube type', the word 'regroovable' if the tire is designed for regrooving, the word 'radial if the tire is a radial tire, and the letter designating the load range of the tire. Removal of any of these required items of information by a tire dealer or distributor would be a violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, as explained above in my answer to Question 1.; 11. a.*If a dealer is removing DOT numbers from tires then sellin those tires to a distributor who sells them to another dealer for resale to the customer, who is in violation of the Federal requirements?*; The answer to this question depends on whether the tires are for use o passenger cars or other motor vehicles. If the tires are passenger car tires, both dealers and the distributor have violated Federal requirements. The dealer removing the DOT numbers has violated Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, as explained in the answer to Question 1 above. The distributor and dealer selling tires which do not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 109 have violated section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act, as explained in the answer to Question 11.b below.; If the tires are for other motor vehicles, the dealer removing the DO numbers has violated section 108(a)(2)(A) of the safety Act. If the tire distributor and the dealer selling the tires to a customer can show that neither one removed the DOT numbers and that the tires were sold with the express understanding that they could not be used on the public roads, neither has violated any Federal requirement.; b. *If a customer buys tires with no DOT number and takes them t another dealer for mounting on his car, is that dealer in violation of Federal requirement because he mounted the tires, even though he did not sell them?*; Since this question deals with passenger car tires, a dealer mountin tires without DOT number would be in violation of Federal law. Section 1089a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act specifies, ' No person shall manufacture for sale, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the Unite States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard...' A tire is an item of motor vehicle equipment, and a passenger car tire without DOT numbers is not in compliance with Standard No. 109. We have stated in previous interpretations that the use of noncomplying tires on pubic roads is an introduction of those tires in interstate commerce, and therefore a violation of this provision of the law. A dealer mounting noncomplying tires on a passenger car would also be considered to be introducing those tires into interstate commerce, and, therefore, also in violation of this provision.; 12. *Please sum up the intent of Standards No. 109 and 119 and indicat if the tire dealer or distributor has an obligation to report to DOT any tire dealer who is removing DOT number and/or other required sidewall information and then selling these tires. Also indicate how this would be done and what steps would follow?*; Standards No. 109 and 119 are intended to provide the tires purchase with necessary information for the safe operation of those tires on the purchaser's vehicle. Tire dealers and distributors cannot remove this information from the sidewall of the tires.; A tire dealer or distributor does not have a legal obligation to repor violations of these requirements, although we would appreciate if they did so. NHTSA prefers reports of violation to be in writing and addressed to: NHTSA, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20590. If for some reason the report cannot be made in writing, a person who suspects a violation of the requirements should telephone Mr. James Gilkey at (202) 426- 2834. When the agency learns of a violation, normal enforcement procedures are begun. First, the agency investigates to see if the allegations of violations are true. If the investigation concludes that there are violations, proceedings to collect the civil penalties are instituted against the violator. As noted above, a tire dealer or distributor removing DOT number from tires would face penalties of up to a maximum of $800,000 if the dealer or distributor had removed the DOT number for 800 or more tires.; If you have any further questions on this subject please contact Mr Kratzke a the above address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel

ID: 16-2706 (GM load limiters on buses Aug 8)_v2 incorporating circulation comments

ID: NCC-230607-001 571.108 Automatic Activation of Hazard Warning Signal for Nonresponsive Driver Frooshani signed 7.22.25

U.S. Department of Transportation
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Office of the Chief Counsel
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE. Washington, DC 20590

July 22, 2025

Mr. John Frooshani 

Vehicle Regulatory Manager, Government Relations  

North American Subaru, Inc. 

One Subaru Drive Camden NJ 08103 

Dear Mr. Frooshani,

I write in response to your letter dated February 5, 2020, requesting an interpretation on whether identified advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) features would comply with the hazard warning signal requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108; Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. You also spoke with staff from the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration's (NHTSA) Office of the Chief Counsel on October 29, 2024. You ask whether your system, after determining a driver is non-responsive, could automatically activate the vehicular hazard warning signal while decelerating the vehicle and bringing it to a stop. Our conclusion is that such a system is permissible in the circumstances described in your letter. 

The contents of this interpretation letter do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. This letter is only intended to provide clarity regarding existing requirements under the law at the time of signature. 

Background 

NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) to issue FMVSS setting performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not pre-approve new motor vehicles, new motor vehicle equipment, or new motor vehicle technologies. In addition, NHTSA does not prohibit the introduction of new motor vehicles or motor vehicle technologies such as Automated Driving Systems (ADS) into the vehicle fleet, provided those vehicles and technologies meet applicable FMVSS and do not present a safety defect. The Safety Act requires manufacturers to self-certify that their vehicles and equipment conform to all applicable FMVSS in effect on the date of manufacture. 

Two provisions of FMVSS No. 108 bear on the issue raised in your letter. First, the standard requires vehicles, except trailers and motorcycles, to be equipped with a vehicular hazard warning signal operating unit and a vehicular hazard warning signal flasher.1 A vehicular hazard warning signal operating unit is defined as a driver-controlled device which causes all required tum signal lamps to flash simultaneously to indicate to approaching drivers the presence of a vehicular hazard.2,3 Second, FMVSS No. 108 S6.2.1 states that no additional lamp, reflective device, or other motor vehicle equipment is permitted to be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by FMVSS No. 108.4 

Your letter states that Subaru is exploring deploying an ADAS with a feature intended to prevent a crash if a human driver has become nonresponsive, with the system assuming vehicular control when a driver is inattentive and non-responsive to system warnings. In the described scenario, the vehicle would be brought to a stop and would "activate the hazard warning lamps as the vehicle is decelerating and continue to activate the hazard lamps after the vehicle has been brought to a stop." You state that, in your opinion, the scenario described in your letter is like the one in our 2016 letter to Brian Latouf of General Motors, which allowed automatic activation of the hazard signal following detection of a nonresponsive driver and after the vehicle has been brought to a stop by advanced vehicle systems, and you seek our concurrence. 

Discussion 

NHTSA's interpretations of "vehicular hazard warning signal operating unit" read FMVSS No. 108 as broadly restricting automatic activation of the hazard signal.5 However, NHTSA historically has read FMVSS No. 108 to allow automatic activation on a case-by-case basis under limited circumstances consistent with the purpose of the hazard warning signal stated in
the standard. FMVSS No. 108 does not permit automatic hazard signal activations that lack any relationship to the original purpose of a hazard warning signal or could create confusion about the signal's meaning.6 

1 49 C.F.R. § 571.108.
2 Id. When activated, sufficient turn signals must flash to meet the minimum photometric requirements in FMVSS No. 108 applicable to turn signals. For the purposes of this letter, we refer to these systems collectively as activating the "hazard signal."
3 Id. The standard also defines the vehicular hazard warning signal flasher as a device which, as long as it is turned on, causes all the required turn signal lamps to flash. This system must flash when actuated by the operating unit. See id Table I-a.
4 49 C.F.R. § 571.108 S6.2. l. Under the impairment analysis NHTSA typically considers four aspects of supplemental lighting: activation pattern, brightness, color, and lamp location. In addition, the impairment analysis is applicable to supplemental lighting (i.e., lighting not required by the standard) and is closely related to the requirement that a manufacturer not "knowingly make inoperative" a compliant device or element of design. 49
U.S.C. § 30122(b). See, e.g. Letter to Paul Schaye, Feb. 9, 2019, available at
https://www.nhtsa.gov/inter.pretations/571108-ama-schaye-front-color-changing-light.
5 In letters to Mark Steele and Eric Reed in 1999 and 2000, NHTSA interpreted "a driver controlled device," to mean that that the hazard signal may not automatically activate. See Letter to Mark Steele, Feb. 25, 2000, available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/inter.pretations/2ll7lztv : and Letter to Eric Reed, Feb. 29, 2000, available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/inter.pretations/reedztv. 
6 Letter to Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, Aug. 5, 1999, available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/inter.pretations/20l80ztv. 

Per FMVSS No. 108, the purpose of the hazard warning system is "to indicate to approaching drivers the presence of a vehicular hazard." Recent interpretations have noted that "the purpose of the hazard warning is to indicate to approaching drivers that the vehicle is stopped or is proceeding at a slower rate than surrounding traffic."7 Several previous agency interpretations referenced FMVSS No. 108 S6.2.1 and emphasized that there is no ambiguity about the meaning or purpose of the hazard signal following a crash.8 Although S6.2.1 applies only to equipment not required by FMVSS No. 108, in our 2016 letter to Mr. Latouf, we clarified that the same analysis applies to automatic activation of the hazard signal.9,10 

Several letters of interpretation have discussed situations in which we believe automatic activation of the hazard signal would be inconsistent with FMVSS No. 108, such as during braking events,11 after "sudden release of the accelerator pedal,"12 or as a "deceleration warning system"13 where it would conflict with the purpose of the stop lamps.14 Most recently, on March 22, 2023, NHTSA denied a petition for decision of inconsequential noncompliance filed by

7 Letter to Brian Latouf, Nov. 18, 2016. https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/16-1289-gm-hazard-innovative-28-apr-16-rsy. This statement is based on a previous statement made in our letter to Sen. Richard Lugar on May 9, 2000, that drivers in general activate the hazard signal to "indicate either that [they are] proceeding at a slower rate than surrounding traffic, or that the vehicle is stopped on or off a roadway." https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/21478ztv. This was a description of typical hazard signal use and was not intended to state the purpose of the hazard warning. The letter stated the activation should depend on the driver's evaluation of the driving environment and should not occur involuntarily simply because the vehicle is decelerating. 8 Letter to Mark Steele, Feb. 25, 2000, available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/2ll71ztv ; Letter to Timothy Bartlett, Jan. 28, 2002, available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/23695ztv; Letter to Stephen Powers, Jan. 19, 2021, available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/571108-help-system-powers.
9 Letter to Brian Latouf, Nov. 18, 2016, available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/16-1289-gm-hazard­ innovative-28-apr-16-rsy. This conclusion is based in part on our longstanding position that the "use of required lighting equipment for other than its original purpose" constitutes equipment not required by the standard such that it can result in impairment. See, e.g. Letter to Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, Aug. 5, 1999, available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/20180ztv. Automatic activation could be understood as allowed supplemental lighting (in addition to the manually controlled hazard signal) if the specific system does not impair the effectiveness of any required lighting. Because it does not influence our conclusion in this letter, we do not determine whether automatic activation of the hazard signal in the manner you describe is or is not supplemental lighting or other motor vehicle equipment.
10 NHTSA interprets FMVSS No. 108 to require that all auxiliary lamps be "steady burning," with the sole exception being auxiliary lamps that supplement required lamps that flash, such as turn signals. Letter to Donald Lane, Nov. 6 2024, available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/ncc-230120-001-571108-peterson-trailer­ auxiliary-door-light-110624-signed. To the extent that the lighting described here could be considered supplemental lighting, NHTSA would view it as supplementing required lights that flash.
11 Daimler Trucks North America, LLC, Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 88 Fed. Reg. 17291 (Mar. 22, 2023).
12 Letter to David Coburn, Aug. 6, 1999, available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/19886ztv.
13 Letter to Jeffrey Echt, incoming received Mar. 10, 1995, available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/aiam552l. Automatically activating the hazard signal can also interfere with other required lighting, such as the turn signals. We have also addressed cases in which other vehicle systems were activated. See, e.g. Letter to Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, Aug. 5, 1999, available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/20l80ztv (finding activating the hazard warning system when the horn is sounded would impair the hazard warning system).
14 See Letter to Stephen Powers, Jan. 19, 2021, available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/571108-help ­
system-powers (limiting the automatic activation of the specified system to after a crash in part because it activated the turn signals up to three times faster than the required flash rate under FMVSS No. 108). 

Daimler Trucks North America, LLC (DTNA), regarding certain Model Year 2020-2021 Freightliner Cascadia heavy trucks.15 These trucks contained a system that automatically activated the hazard signal during a brake assist application, when the brake system applies maximum braking force to assist the driver in bringing the truck to a complete stop. 

In contrast to these scenarios, our 2016 letter to Mr. Latouf addressed a similar situation to the one described in your letter. There, we stated that under FMVSS No. 108 a system could, after finding a driver unresponsive and bringing the vehicle to a stop, automatically activate the hazard signal.16 We analogized the situation to the one after a crash and noted that being at a complete stop "is the prototypical situation in which the hazard lights are intended to be used, and it is one of the situations that other motorists have come to expect when they see the hazard signal."17 However, we also stated that "the purpose of the hazard warning is to indicate to approaching drivers that the vehicle is stopped or is proceeding at a slower rate than surrounding traffic."18 We also declined to state that such activations could occur only when stopped, finding that future approaches for automatic activation of the hazard signal would be handled on a case­ by-case basis.19 

Based on our understanding of the specific circumstances described in your letter, the automatic activation of the hazard warning signal you describe is permissible under FMVSS No. 108. As an initial matter, because FMVSS No. 108 does not specify in what situations the hazard warning signal may or may not be activated, we decline to state categorically that the hazard warning signal can be automatically activated only after a vehicle has come to a complete stop. Indeed, in the letter to Mr. Latouf, we acknowledged that "proceeding at a slower rate than traffic" is a situation in which drivers typically activate the hazard warning system. 

Where past agency interpretations have opined negatively about in-motion activations, it was because the use in question was not consistent with the purpose of the hazard warning system or it impaired the effectiveness of required lighting in violation of FMVSS No. 108.20 However, your system does not appear to activate the hazard warning system in a way that we have previously found unacceptable. Instead, we view the conditions described in your letter as largely similar to those described in our letter to Mr. Latouf. 

This letter does not mean that NHTSA views FMVSS No. 108 as generally allowing the automatic use of the hazard warning signal while in motion or to indicate that a vehicle's ADAS 

15 88 Fed. Reg. 17291. We believe the circumstances of the petition are distinguishable under FMVSS No. 108. First, Subaru's system does not adjust the flash rate. Second, it activates only in the rare event of a nonresponsive driver. Third, DTNA's system specifically activated during brake events. FMVSS No. 108 states that the stop lights communicate that a vehicle is stopping or diminishing speed by braking. Therefore, the instant circumstance presents much lower risk of confusion than activation during a brake assist.
16 Letter to Brian Latouf, Nov. 18, 2016, available at https://www.nhtsa.gov/intei:pretations/16-1289-gm-hazard ­
innovative-28-apr-16-rsy.
17 Id
18 Id See Supra, note 9, for clarification regarding this quote.
19 Id
20 This letter does not rescind prior NHTSA letters of interpretation on the topic of automatic activation of the hazard warning system. 

or ADS systems are active. The presence of a nonresponsive driver creates a situation where vehicle operation and driving maneuvers are largely disabled and will be for an unknown duration, as is often true following a crash or if there is a health or mechanical issue. In such a circumstance, even if the vehicle is being decelerated to a stop, the hazard warning is not being used to communicate deceleration, activation of the stop lamps, or another action that may be the purview of a lamp required by FMVSS No. 108. Instead, the activation occurs only upon the detection of a separate hazard: a nonresponsive driver. Therefore, the risk of ambiguity or confusion of the signals is low. 

Conclusion 

Based on the information presented in your letter, the system described above would not violate FMVSS No. 108's requirements applicable to the vehicular hazard warning signal operating unit or vehicular hazard warning signal flasher. It would also not impair the effectiveness of required lighting. This interpretation is specific to the circumstances described above.

We note that Subaru indicates that when the driver is unable or unwilling to take control of the vehicle, the system will bring the vehicle to a stop. A vehicle system that stops a vehicle directly in a roadway might, depending on the circumstances, be considered to contain a safety-related defect, i.e., it may present an unreasonable risk of an accident occurring or of death and injury in an accident.21 Federal law requires the recall of a vehicle that contains a safety-related defect.22 We urge Subaru to fully consider the likely operation of the system it is contemplating and ensure that it will not present such a risk. 

Finally, activation of the hazard signal is subject to State laws, which may control when a hazard signal may be used. Nothing in this interpretation should be read to preempt State law regarding when it is appropriate for a hazard warning system to be used. We are unable to advise you on those laws, but you should ensure your system complies with any and all State laws regarding when a hazard warning system may be activated.
If you have any further questions, please contact Eli Wachtel of my staff at interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov. 

Sincerely,

Peter Simshauser 

Chief Counsel

Dated: 7/22/25
Ref: Standard No. 108

2149 u.s.c. §§ 30102, 30118.
22 49 U.S.C. § 30118.

ID: nht87-1.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/20/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Martin V. Chauvin

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your two letters to this agency concerning safety belts on school buses. Your October 24, 1986 letter to this office asked for clarification of a Federal Register notice issued by NHTSA in 1976 which stated that seats on large school bu ses are strong enough to absorb the seat belt loads set for belts on smaller school buses. Your October 29, 1986 letter to NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, which has been referred to my office for reply, concerned manufacturers' test data for head form impact requirements of Standards No. 222 and No. 208. I apologize for the delay in responding to your letters.

Your first letter pertained to retrofitting safety belts on large school buses meeting Standard No. 222. You referred to a 1976 Federal Register notice in which NHTSA said that seats on large school buses that meet Standard No. 222 are strong enough to absorb safety belt loads. You explained that school bus manufacturers disagree with those statements and have indicated that they are not true for most seats on large school buses manufactured since 1977. Your question asked whether manufacturers are r equired to equip large school buses with seats that are strong enough to meet the load requirements set for safety belts in small school buses.

The answer to your question is no. Seats installed on large school buses must meet their own strength requirements set by Standard No. 222. Manufacturers are not required to install seats on large school buses that are capable of meeting the load requi rements set for safety belts on small school buses.

For your information, I am enclosing a May 11, 1978 letter from former Chief Counsel Joseph Levin to Dr. Arthur Yeager, in which we discuss the statement made in Notice 5 of Docket 73-3 you referenced in your letter. Mr. Levin's letter explains that NHT SA had proposed safety belt requirements for large school buses that would have set lower belt load requirements than those currently applicable to small school buses. (In addition, the proposed seat strength requirement was higher than that adopted in Standard No. 222.) Mr. Levin explains that the statement made in Notice 5 was referring to the safety belt requirements formerly proposed for the seats on large school buses, which the seats would be capable of withstanding. It did not mean to imply tha t the seats on large school buses were strong enough to be retrofitted with safety belts and meet the requirements applicable to belts on small school buses.

We believe that manufacturers can design the seats on large school buses to accommodate safety belts which meet the load requirements applicable to belts on the smaller school buses. As you know, NHTSA proposed an amendment to Standard No. 222 which wou ld set such a strength requirement for safety belts voluntarily installed on new large school buses, to ensure that proper belt installations are made. If adopted, the amendment would supersede any conflicting statements in the Yeager letter concerning the load requirements applicable to new large school buses.

In your second letter, you explained that New York enacted a law which sets certain head form impact requirements for school buses. You would like to obtain information from manufacturers regarding the values they obtained for the actual axial accelerat ion of the head form pursuant to Standards No. 208 and No. 222. You asked whether motor vehicle manufacturers are required to submit such test data to NHTSA.

The answer to your question is no. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer of motor vehicles or items or motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its pr oducts meet all applicable motor vehicle safety standards. This process requires each manufacturer to exercise due care in selecting and conducting the mathematical calculations, computer simulations or testing that form the basis for that certification . That data is retained by the manufacturer, and is not submitted to NHTSA for approval. NHTSA can request manufacturers to produce records to show how it determined compliance if a question should arise as to the compliance of a particular product wit h NHTSA requirements.

Please note that the New York legislation you mentioned raises an important preemption issue. Federal preemption of State motor vehicle safety standards is governed by @103(d) of the Vehicle Safety Act, which states:

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard under this subchapter 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 moto r 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. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the Federal Government or the government of any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard of performance than that requi red to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard. We understand that New York's law requires passenger safety belts and additional seat padding on all new school buses manufactured for use in New York. The New York law applies to the same a spect of performance (i.e., passenger crash protection) as Standard No. 222 but specifies performance requirements that are not identical to the Federal standard. In requiring the belts and the additional padding, the New York law is specifying higher r equirements than those in the FMVSS. Section 103(d) preempts higher state requirements except to the extent that they apply to vehicles procured for the State's use. Therefore, the New York law is preempted under the first sentence of @103(d) to the ex tent that the law requires all school buses manufactured for use in New York to be equipped with belts and extra padding. The law is not preempted to the extent that it requires belts and additional padding for public school buses. The phrase "vehicles procured for [the State's] own use" includes public school buses and school buses operated and owned by a private contractor under contract to transport children to and from public school.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have further questions.

ENC.

STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

October 24, 1986

Erika Z. Jones Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Ms. Jones:

The New York State Department of Transportation has been designated by New York statute as the agency responsible for promulgating regulations dealing with seat belts on school buses. In pursuing this assignment, we have been presented with a problem th at needs clarification from your office.

Enclosed are two documents that refer to standards being considered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). One document is a copy of a page (4017) of the Federal Register. Vol. 41-No. 19-Wednesday, January 28, 1976 (the specific date is somewhat blurred but it is definitely January 20 something 1976). The second document is identified as "Preamble to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222" and is dated October 26, 1976. The question we need clarification on is addressed in bot h documents.

We have been provided an interpretation of these documents (underlined or otherwise marked to identify particular item in question) that indicates that school buses, since 1977 have been required to provide seats that meet safety standard 222 and as such must be capable of accomodating seat belts. School bus body manufacturers advise us that this is not true. In fact, the manufacturers advise us that better than 95 percent of the buses manufacturered since 1977 would not be equipped with seats that ca n accomodate seat belts.

We are looking to you to help clarify this matter. In essence, we want to know if manufacturers are required to equip school buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds with seats that can accomodate seat belts (for example, meet the federal standards that have been spelled out for buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less).

We are faced with some severe time constraints so we would appreciate a response at your earliest possible convenience.

Thank for your help.

MARTIN V. CHAUVIN, Chief Carrier Safety Bureau

ENCLS.

STATE OF NEW YORK

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

October 29, 1986 William, Smith Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Smith:

Enclosed is a copy of a bill that was enacted into law on July 30, 1986 and sets certain requirements for seat belts and seat back padding for school buses.

Section 142 of the New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law provides a broad definition of school bus and applies to passenger cars if used by a school district or by others on a for hire basis to transport pupils. This law specifies that these school bus es (including passenger cars) must meet the head form impact requirement as spelled out in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS), 49 CFR Section 571.222 except the impact requirement shall not exceed 800 whereas the federal standard allows 1000.

We are interested in finding out if the automobile manufacturers are required to provide any specific test data that would indicate the actual axial acceleration of the head form as described in FMVSS Section 571.222, S5.3 Impact zone requirements or Sec tion 571.208, S6 Injury criteria. We are trying to determine if the information we are seeking is already available at one central point or if we must deal directly with each manufacturer individually.

Any assistance you can provide in helping us deal with this issue would be greatly appreciated.

MARTIN V. CHAUVIN, Chief Carrier Safety Bureau

STATE OF NEW YORK

10596 -- B

R. R. 872

IN ASSEMBLY

March 25, 1986

Introduced by M. of A. WEINSTEIN, GRABER, PASSANNANTE, LASHER, BRODSKY, SCHMIDT -- Multi-Sponsored by -- M. of A. BIANCHI, BURROWS, CONNELLY, EVE, HALPIN, HARENBERG, LIPSCHUTZ, NEWBURGER, VITALIANO -- read once and referred to the Committee on Transpo rtation -- reported and referred to the Committee on Rules -- Rules Committee discharged, bill amended, ordered reprinted as amended and recommitted to the Committee on Rules -- amended on the special order of third reading, ordered reprinted as amended, retaining its place on the special order of third reading

AN ACT to amend the vehicle and traffic law and the education law, in relation to seat safety belts for school buses

The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows: Section 1. Subdivision five of section three hundred eighty-three of the vehicle and traffic law is renumbered subdivision six and a new subdivision five is added to read as follows:

5. (a) Passenger seat safety belts for school buses. Every school bus, as defined in section one hundred forty-two of this chapter, manufactured for use in this state on and after July first, nineteen hundred eighty-seven, shall be designed so that all passenger seats on such vehicle are equipped with seat safety belts and increased seat back padding on passenger seats of a type and specification as approved by the commissioner of transportation through the adoption of rules and regulations. Such rules and regulations shall provide that when any contactable surface of the school bus, as specified in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 49 CFR Section 571.222, is impacted from any direction at twenty-two feet per second by the head form, the axial acceleration at the center of gravity of the head form shall be such that the head form impact requirement shall not exceed eight hundred.

(b) Passenger seat safety belts for existing school buses. Any school bus as defined in section one hundred forty-two of this chapter, which is scheduled for retrofitting pursuant to action by a board of education or board of trustees under section t hirty-six hundred thirty-five-a of the education law shall be retrofitted so that all passenger seats on such vehicles are equipped with seat safety belts and additional padding of a type and specification as approved by the commissioner of transportatio n through the adoption of rules and regulations. Such rules and regulations shall provide that when any contactable surface of the school bus as specified in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, 49CFR Section 571.222 is impacted from any direction at twenty-two feet per second by the head form, the axial acceleration at the center of gravity of the head form shall be such that the head form impact requirement shall not exceed eight hundred. Furthermore, the commissioner shall have the power thro ugh rules and regulations to exempt certain design school buses from retrofitting in granting such exemptions the commissioner shall consider safety factors, structural integrity of the school buses and any other items deemed necessary to preserve the sa fety and welfare of the school bus passengers. Provided further however that the commissioner of transportation shall not authorize retrofitting of any school bus manufactured prior to April first, nineteen hundred seventy-seven.

@ 2. Paragraph b of subdivision seven of section thirty-six hundred two of the eduction law, as amended by chapter fifty-three of the laws of nineteen hundred eighty-five, is amended to read as follows:

b. For the purposes of this apportionment, approved transportation expense shall be the actual expenditure incurred by a school district and approved by the commissioner (i) for those items for which an allowance would be provided under section thirt y-six hundred twenty-seven for the transportation of pupils as defined in section thirty-six hundred twenty-one if the district were eligible for transportation quota state aid under part two of this article, and (ii) for the transportation required or a uthorized pursuant to article eighty-nine, and (iii) for regional or joint transportation systems and (iv) for computerized bus routing services, (v) for the transportation of any pupil during the school day to and from programs at a board of cooperative educational services or to or from approved shared programs at other school districts, which programs may lead to a diploma or a high school equivalency diploma or to or from occupational education programs operated within the district, (vi) for the pur chase of two-way radios to be used on old and new school buses, and (vii) for the purchase of stop-arms as defined by subdivision twenty of section two of this chapter, to be used on old and new school buses and (viii) for the purchase and installation o f seat safety belts on school buses in accordance with the provisions of section thirty-six hundred thirty-five-a of this chapter. Approved transportation expense shall include employers social security contributions for transportation personnel. Approv ed transportation expense shall also include all salaries and retirement benefits related to transportation, except salaries and retirement benefits for assistant drivers on buses transporting nonhandicapped pupils, and health, life and other insurance p remiums for transportation personnel for whom salaries are approved, premiums for collision and other insurance coverage, uniforms, and equipment and other expenses as approved pursuant to regulations of the commissioner.

@ 3. Section thirty-eight hundred thirteen of such law is amended by adding a new subdivision four to read as follows. (Illegible Lines)

(Illegible Words) Safety belt usage. 1. A board of education or board of trustees may in its discretion, following a public hearing for the purpose of determining whether a resolution shall be adopted, provide for the use of seat safety belts on such s chool buses, in accordance with regulations and standards established by the commissioner under subdivision one of section thirty-six hundred twenty-three of this chapter.

2. Such public hearing, conducted upon reasonable notice, shall be held to consider: (a) whether the district shall install seat safety belts on buses purchased and/or contracted for prior to the effective date of this section and require their use; (b) when such installation shall be provided, and (c) whether use of seat safety belts shall be required on all school buses within the district so equipped after a date to be determined by the board of education or board of trustees.

3. Such hearings shall consider the effect of seat safety belts installation on the total number of students that can be transported on such buses.

4. Within twenty days after the public hearing, the board of education or board of trustees shall, by resolution, determine whether to require installation and use of seat safety belts on some or all school buses.

5. This section shall apply only to vehicles owned or leased by school districts and nonpublic schools, and to vehicles used to perform contracts with such school districts and nonpublic schools for the purpose of transporting school children for hir e.

6. Nothing in this section shall be construed to impose a duty upon boards of (Illegible Word) or boards of trustees to provide seat safety belts on school buses purchased or contracted for prior to the effective date of this section, nor shall any b oard of education or board of trustees be held liable for failure to provide seat safety belts pursuant to this section. A school board member or trustee shall have immunity from any (Illegible Words) liability that might otherwise be incurred or impose d is a result of the provisions of the section provided that such person (Illegible Words) in good faith. For the purpose of any proceeding, civil (Illegible Words) the good faith of any such person shall be presumed.

7. The premissions of this section shall not be apply to school districts which are using safety belts on school buses or have instilled or have (Illegible Word) for the installation of seat safety belts prior to the effective date of this section. @ 8. (Illegible Word) on eof section thirty-six hundred twenty-three of (Illegible Words) amended by chapter two hundred twenty-seven of the laws of (Illegible Words) seventy-nine, is amended to read as follows: (Illegible Lines) efficency and equipment of school buses used to transport pupils, with particular regard to the safety and convenience of such pupils and the suitability and adaptability of such school buses to the requirements of the school district. The capacity of such school buses shall not be in excess of the needs of the school district with reference to the particular route or routes traveled by such school bus. No school bus shall be purchased by a school district or used for the transportation of pupils unless and until it has bee n approved by the commissioner as complying with the rules, standards and specifications relating thereto. No bus manufactured after January first, nineteen hundred seventy-four shall be used to transport pupils under any contract with a school district or board of cooperative educational services unless it has been similarly approved by the commissioner, except that no such approval shall be required for buses used to transport pupils and also used to serve the general public under a certificate of pu blic convenience for the operation of an omnibus line, granted pursuant to the transportation law. The commissioner shall also establish and provide for the enforcement of rules and regulations requiring instruction on the use of seat safety belts as spe cified in subdivision five of section three hundred eighty-three of the vehicle and traffic law and section thirty-six hundred thirty-five-a of this chapter, drills in safe boarding and existing procedures and emergency drills to be conducted on all scho ol buses and shall emphasize specific hazards encountered by children during snow, ice, rain and other inclement weather. All such drills shall include instruction in the importance of orderly conduct by all school bus passengers. A minimum of three su ch drills shall be had on each school bus during the school year, the first to be conducted during the first week of the fall term.

@ 6. This act shall take effect on the thirtieth day after it shall have become a law.