ID: nht92-2.41

DATE: 11/09/92

FROM: MARION C. BLAKEY ADMINISTRATOR, NHTSA

TO: HONORABLE JOHN D. DINGELL -- CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

COPYEE: MR. AARON GORDON

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 9-17-92 FROM JOHN D. DINGELL TO MARION C. BLAKEY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope you find this information helpful.

ATTACHMENT TRB REPORT SUMMARY, DATED MAY, 1989, ENTITLED SPECIAL REPORT 222-IMPROVING SCHOOL BUS SAFETY. (TEST OMITED)

ID: nht92-2.42

DATE: November 9, 1992

FROM: Rodney T. Nash -- Vice President Engineering, Collins Industries, Inc.

TO: Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/30/92 from Stephen P. Wood (signed by John Womack) (A40; Part 571.3)

TEXT:

Please forward this letter to the appropriate locations within the office of General Counsel to answer this question on vehicle designation. The final-stage manufacturer of a vehicle is required to label his vehicle with the information designated in FMVSS 115 and FMVSS 120. This information requires the final-stage manufacturer to designate the vehicle classification involved. We need to know how to classify an ambulance that is built on a truck chassis.

The ambulance carries more weight of specialized equipment for patient-care support than it carries people. The special purpose vehicles operates half of its life with no patient in the rear cargo area but always carries heart monitors, jaws of life, stretchers, respirators, and other life-support equipment. The question that needs clarification is what vehicle class (truck or MPV) should be applied to an ambulance. Should the classification change if the vehicle is focused on equipment transport over patient transport? It appears to us that the final-stage manufacturer is free to select between these categories.

Should you wish to discuss this question further, please call 316-663-5551 during normal working hours. I've taken the liberty of enclosing a piece of sales literature for a cargo intensive ambulance for you to review in issuing your opinion letter.

Thank you in advance for any prompt consideration you can give this request.

ID: nht92-2.43

DATE: 11/07/92

FROM: JORDAN J. POKRINCHAK -- PRESIDENT, JORDAN RESEARCH CORPORATION

TO: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNCIL D.O.T.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-4-92 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD TO JORDON J. POKRINCHAK (A40; STD. 108); ALSO ATTACHED TO NHTSA LETTER OF 3-26-92 TO CHARLES W. O'CONNOR

TEXT: I am writing to you in regard to your recent decision to approve electronic brake controls made by Tekonsha Engineering Company in relation to stop lamp operation when braking with a trailer in tow.

I would cite Section 393.25 Paragraph (F) "Stop Lamp Operation," of Code of Federal Regulations Volume 49 (Transportation Parts 400 to 999) Revised as of October 1, 1989, for the basis of my concern as to the operation of the stop lamps when applying the trailer brakes in an emergency condition.

I believe this section of the code is quite specific when dealing with the actuation of the trailer stop lamps, either manually or automatically, and has nothing to do with the installation of controllers in regard to rendering the stop lamps inoperative in whole or in part within the meaning of Section 1397 (a) (2) (A) of 15 U.S.C. which you have cited in rendering your decision.

I also believe that in all laws and regulations, there is the letter of the law, and the intent of the law which must be considered when rendering such an important decision as you have on Tekonsha Brake Controls and its effect on the general driving public.

Tekonsha Engineering has had problems with the operation of their brake controls for some time. One way of alleviating the problem was to remove the wire that activated the control through the tow vehicle stop-light switch and which in turn operated the stop lamps on the trailer being towed. By eliminating this feature of activating the trailer stop lamps in the manual mode, they have placed the operator of the vehicle towing the trailer at risk for a rear end collision. While he (the operator) may have knowingly rendered the stop lamps on the towed vehicle inoperative for the duration of such activation of the hand control (manual mode) as stated in your decision, the driver behind the trailer has not been given any warning that the brakes on the trailer are being applied.

Tekonsha Engineering has cited your decision in regard to Section 1397 (a) (2) (A) with all due pomp and circumstance, but has failed to comply with common sense in regard to avoiding accidents. You have in effect given them the "green light" to produce their "Voyager" and "Commander" brake controls without regard to driver safety.

I believe you should reconsider all the facts in rendering your decision on the basis of driver safety and not some regulation that Tekonsha Engineering is using out of context. We do, Gentlemen, look to you for decisions that will protect lives on our highways.

You have it within your power to require Tekonsha Engineering to comply with regulations pertaining to the operation of trailer stop lamps by simply requiring that they (Tekonsha Engineering) add the wire or connection to their controls that would activate the trailer stop lamps in the manual mode. After all, they are the only manufacturer of trailer brake controls that do not activate the trailer stop lamps in the manual mode and are using you to help market a potentially dangerous product.

ID: nht92-2.44

DATE: 11/06/92

FROM: RICHARD HORIAN -- PRESIDENT, WOODLEAF CORP.

TO: PAUL J. RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: SUDDEN BRAKE INDICATOR HAZARD LIGHT

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-7-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO RICHARD HORIAN (A40; STD. 108)

TEXT: Enclosed is an official request for proposal to allow a vehicular lighting system that warns when an emergency braking situation or other hazard is occurring. Simply, when a driver engages in hard braking, a circuit activates a separate lighting system to warn other drivers to pay special attention to a potentially hazardous situation.

The Sudden Brake Indicator Hazard Light is different from other similar systems proposed over the years with the following unique advantages:

(A) An electronic pressure switch is used within the brake pedal assembly. No hydraulic pressure switch is mounted within the vehicle's hydraulic brake lines. If the electric pressure switch fails for any reason, all existing braking and lighting systems on the vehicle remain unaffected.

(B) Increased foot pressure being applied during hazard braking conditions is a natural ergonomic reflex. The driver does not have to divert his attention to activate a manual switch or other device.

(C) The Sudden Brake Indicator Hazard Light may be activated when the vehicle is not in motion. Most rear end collisions occur when the lead vehicle is stopped. If the stopped lead vehicle driver notices in his rear view mirror that another driver is approaching too fast, he simply has to depress his brake pedal with greater pressure to instantly activate the hazard light. No time is lost as the driver's foot is already on the brake.

(D) In emergency situations when a vehicle goes off the road and comes to a stop, the hazard light may be instantly activated by harder depression of the brake pedal. This is primarily important during night time freeway driving. Precious seconds are not lost while searching for the manually activated hazard light switch until it is turned on.

(E) Most importantly, there is no chance of drivers becoming desensitized to the Sudden Brake Indicator Hazard Light as it is rarely used. Other proposed systems were designed to be activated during all braking conditions. With these systems, either flashing or steady burning, this is tantamount to just another brake light that sooner or later would be regarded the same as existing brake light designs.

ATTACHMENT

Mr. Paul J. Rice Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic & Safety Administration 400 7TH Street, Room 5219 Washington, DC 20590

REFERENCE: SUDDEN BRAKE INDICATOR HAZARD LIGHT

Dear Mr. Rice,

Please allow a written opinion for allowance of a Sudden Brake Indicator vehicular hazard lighting system described as follows.

A separate hazard brake light system that is activated only when a predetermined threshold of pressure is reached upon physical depression of a vehicle's brake pedal. The hazard brake light system primarily consists of two components: (A) A pressure sensitive electronic switch mounted within the vehicle's brake pedal assembly that is activated only when a predetermined amount of foot pressure is applied to the brake pedal that is usually greater than those pressures applied during normal driving conditions (as an example, foot pressure application greater than 25 lbs. of force). (B) A light or light assembly that is mounted to the rear of the vehicle that when illuminated, may warn other vehicles of a sudden braking or other hazard situation.

The hazard light may be red or amber in color and steady burning or flashing as required to warn other drivers that a hazard situation may be occurring so that special driving attention should be employed.

The hazard brake light system will be mounted in one of two places. (A) The high mount stop light outer housing will be slightly expanded to contain a separate inner housing or housings with separate bulb and lens coverings from that of the high mount stop light. (B) Elsewhere on the rear of the vehicle so as not to conflict with the other lighting functions mandatory on the vehicle.

The switch, hardware, wiring, lights, lenses and housings will conform to all existing Automotive Codes of Federal Regulations. The hazard light system will be design manufactured and installed for use only on original equipment manufactured vehicles.

Sincerely,

Richard Horian

President

ID: nht92-2.45

DATE: 11/05/92

FROM: KIM WELSH -- EMMETT KOELSCH COACHES

TO: PUBLICATIONS DEPARTMENT, DOT

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-1-92 (EST.) FROM PAUL J. RICE TO KIM WELSH (A40; PART 571.3)

TEXT: Please forward a copy of the "Motor Vehicle Safety Standards" regarding School Buses and other Transit type vehicles. Please use the above address. If there are any questions please use our number list above.

Thank You!

ID: nht92-2.46

DATE: 11/03/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: JAMES A. WESTPHAL -- OSHKOSH CHASSIS DIVISION, OSHKOSH TRUCK CORPORATION

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 9-2-92 FROM JAMES A. WESTPHAL, OSHKOSH, TO NHTSA ADMINISTRATOR (OCC 7745)

TEXT: This letter responds to your inquiry about which Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards would be applicable to certain incomplete vehicles (chassis less cab) that you manufacture for motor homes. You anticipate that the motor homes will have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) over 10,000 pounds but less than 26,000 pounds.

Your letter indicated that Oshkosh plans to install brake systems in the two models which use compressed air to provide braking power, and hydraulic fluid to transmit the energy to the hydraulically activated disc brakes at each wheel. You stated that this system is commonly known as "air-over-hydraulic."

The following is in response to your four specific questions:

1. Must the brake system comply with the requirements of Standard No. 121 applicable to trucks?

The answer to question number one is yes. The agency classifies air-over-hydraulic brake systems as air brake systems. Accordingly, vehicles equipped with air-over-hydraulic brake systems are required to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 121. I am enclosing a July 20, 1984 interpretation letter to Ms. Margaret Moore Oba which discusses this issue at length.

2. Must the brake system comply with the requirements of Standard No. 105 applicable to multipurpose passenger vehicles?

The answer to question number two is no. Standard No. 105 only applies to vehicles with hydraulic brake systems. Since your system is air-over-hydraulic, it is considered to be an air brake system and not a hydraulic brake system.

3. If Standard No. 121 compliance is required must the hydraulically powered disc brakes comply with Section S5.4 Service brake system -- dynamometer tests?

The answer to question number three is yes. The requirements of S5.4 are among the requirements specified in Standard No. 121 for each vehicle equipped with air brakes.

4. If compliance to parts of both Standards 121 and 105 is required, must the system meet the requirements of the following sections in Standard No. 105: S5.1.2 Partial Failure, S5.1.3 Inoperative brake power assist or brake power unit, and/or S5.3 Brake system indicator lamp.

As indicated above, air-over hydraulic brake systems are not required to meet the requirements of Standard No. 105.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-2.47

DATE: 11/03/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: JULIA WALL -- HEAD OF SCHOOL, THE TRINITY SCHOOL OF TEXAS

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 09-01-92 (EST.) FROM JULIA WALL TO D.O.T. (OCC 7738)

TEXT: This responds to your letter to the Department of Transportation seeking a copy of the federal law regulating student transportation in general, and as it specifically relates to multiple passenger vans. I assume that your use of the term multiple passenger vans refers to vans with seats to the rear of the driver.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to clarify Federal law as it relates to school buses. By way of background information, NHTSA has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, in order to reduce the number of fatalities and injuries that result from motor vehicle crashes.

Under NHTSA's regulations, passenger vans are generally classified as either multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's) or buses. The MPV category includes passenger vans which carry ten persons or less; passenger vans which carry more than ten persons are buses. Under the agency's definitions, a "school bus" is a type of bus sold for transporting students to and from school or school-related events.

All MPV's and buses are required to meet Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, in the legislative history of the School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974, Congress stated that school transportation should be held to the highest level of safety. Accordingly, NHTSA has issued special Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all new school buses.

Like all safety standards, NHTSA's school bus standards impose obligations on the manufacturers and sellers of new motor vehicles, not upon the subsequent users of these vehicles. It is a violation of Federal law for any person to sell any new vehicle that does not comply with all school bus safety standards if the vehicle capacity is more than 10 persons, and if the seller is aware that the purchaser intends to use the vehicle as a school bus. On the other hand, without violating any provision of Federal law, a school may use a vehicle which does not comply with Federal school bus regulations to transport school children. This is so because the individual States, not the Federal government, have authority over the use of vehicles.

However, I would like to call your attention to a guideline that NHTSA has issued under the authority of the Highway Safety Act of 1966. That Act authorizes the agency to issue guidelines for states to use in developing their highway safety programs. NHTSA issued Highway Safety Program Guideline 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, to provide recommendations to the states on various operational aspects of their school bus and pupil transportation safety programs. Guideline 17 recommends that any vehicle designed for carrying more than 10 persons which is used as a school bus comply with all safety standards applicable to school buses at the time the vehicle was manufactured. A copy of Guideline 17 is enclosed.

In conclusion, it is not a violation of Federal law for your school to use vans for transportation of school children; however, use of these vehicles may be restricted by Texas law. I must emphasize NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students. I strongly recommend that you give your most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting school children in vehicles that do not comply with those standards.

I hope this information will be helpful to you. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of this office at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-1.2

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: 01/01/94 EST

FROM: Rowe Manufacturing

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: GLAD-GRIP

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/18/94 from John Womack to Neil Rowe (A42; Std. 106)

TEXT:

The Glad-Grip started as a useful device to help connect and disconnect the hydraulic hoses on farm implements. This device is called the Hydra-Grip. As time passed and the Hydra-Grip became better known, several truckers saw the Hydra-Grip and thought they would be an asset on the air hoses of semi truck tractors. There is nothing on the air hoses to get a grip on except the hose itself or the spring below the glad hand. Especially during cold weather when drivers twist the glad hand loose from its mating coupler half, the hose would be bent at a severe angle causing the hose to either break or develop a leak. This problem is greatly reduced by installing the Glad-Grip, a very durable and simple handle. Safety is also a factor as the operator's hand is not in contact with the air hose itself.

The Glad-Grip has a machined steel core designed and tested to withstand a minimum of 3000 psi of hydraulic pressure, far in excess of the pressure on the air line system. The center bore of the core exceeds DOT requirements of at least 66% of the air l ine inside diameter. The threads, both male and female, are cut to American National Standard Institute one half inch NPTF threads.

It is the desire of Rowe Manufacturing to provide a safe and economical device for the trucking industry. To help minimize down time and costly repairs associated with broken hoses. At the same time we want to abide by all DOT standards and regulations .

Thank you for your consideration of our product. If you have any questions regarding our product feel free to call.

ID: nht94-1.20

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 14, 1994

FROM: James M. Keitges -- President, Native American Motorcycle Company

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/3/94 from James Womack to James M. Keitges (A42; VSA Sect. 103(d))

TEXT:

Please allow me to introduce you to the Native American Motorcycle Company. The company is in the process of organizing to become the O.E.M. for large displacement motorcycles. We are currently sifting through information in order to comply with all Fed eral regulations as they apply to the manufacturing of motorcycles.

In order to make this task as succinct as possible, I am writing to request a statement from your office. The statement should confirm that once the company has complied with all Federal NHTSA statutes, regulations and standards, then the company has al so complied with the State and Local requirements as applicable to NHTSA.

This statement will expedite our research and result in quicker compliance at all levels. Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to working with your office in the future.

ID: nht94-1.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 19, 1994

FROM: Donald F. Lett -- Lett Electronics Co.

TO: Department of Transportation -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 5/18/94 From John Womack To Donald Lett (A42; Std. 109; Std. 110; Part 575.104)

TEXT: Dear Sir,

I was directed to your department by Mr. Duane Perrin to resolve any legal responsibility, if any, for the following question;

Is there any pre-necessary authorization needed to modify an existing passenger tire, for instance a 215-70-R15 blackwall radial tire?

Proposed Modification

Grind down the existing sidewall 1/8 to 3/16 inch deep by 2 1/2" wide. Then vulcanizing white rubber into this recess making a 2 1/2" whitewall radial tire out of a previously D.O.T. approved radial blackwall tire.

Thereupon we would merchandise this tire Nation wide to a specific classic car buff of the 1955-1960 era. Your kind attention to this matter would be greatly appreciate.

Thank you,