ID: 9719

Mr. Thomas D. Turner
Manager, Engineering Services
Blue Bird Body Company
P.O. Box 937
Fort Valley, GA 31030

Dear Mr. Turner:

This responds to your letter of February 21, 1994, requesting further clarification of the requirements of S5.5.3(c) of Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (as amended at 57 FR 49413; November 2, 1992). Section S5.5.3(c) states that "(e)ach opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a minimum 3 centimeters wide retroreflective tape."The July 7, 1993 letter also stated that the agency planned to issue a correction notice of the November 2, 1992 rule that would specify a minimum size of 2.5 cm for the tape. This notice has not yet been published. Until the correction is issued, NHTSA will not take enforcement measures regarding tape size against a manufacturer who uses 1 inch wide retroreflective tape. Your letter referenced our July 7, 1993 letter to you in which we stated that S5.5.3(c) permits interruptions in the tape necessary to accommodate curved surfaces and functional components. You requested confirmation "that retro-reflective tape around the perimeter of the rear of a school bus can be used to satisfy the requirements of S5.5.3(c)."

I cannot interpret the requirements of S5.5.3(c) as you request, since for many, if not most, designs the nearest possible location will be closer than the perimeter of the bus. While we appreciate your concerns about durability if numerous cuts or notches are made to accommodate rivets, our July 7 letter stated that manufacturers have the option of placing the retroreflective tape immediately adjacent to the rivets, rather than over the rivets. As an example, from the illustrations you enclosed, it appears that it may be possible to apply retroreflective tape outside the rivets adjacent to the lower portions of the door. Thus, that would be the nearest possible location, rather than the perimeter of the bus itself. I note, however, that the illustrations do not provide sufficient detail of all obstructions for us to determine the nearest possible location for each design.

I also note that your letter stated in support of your request that all school buses are required to have a rear emergency exit. While this is true, the type of emergency exit will vary and retroreflective tape at the perimeter of the exit would allow rescuers to immediately know the precise location of the exit. Moreover, retroreflective tape at the perimeter would enable rescuers to immediately know which type of exit is in this location. This information could be vitally important. Because push-out windows are not required to have a means of releasing the exit from outside the bus (S5.3.3.2), this information would allow rescuers to quickly determine that they should move to the sides of the bus to locate an exit they can open.

Your letter asked the agency to treat it as a petition for rulemaking if we did not interpret the standard as you requested. You will be notified of our decision to grant or deny your petition.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:217 d:3/28/94

ID: GF009138

Mr. Kenneth M. Bush
Associate Director, Government. Relations
American Suzuki Motor Corporation
3251 East Imperial Highway
PO Box 1100
Brea, CA 92822-1100




Dear Mr. Bush:

This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 201, "Occupant protection in interior impact". Specifically, you ask whether side curtain air bag tethers are considered a part of the "stowed system" that is subject to reduced impact speed upper interior component performance requirements. As discussed below, the answer is yes.

By way of background, S6.2 of FMVSS No. 201 sets minimum performance requirements for upper interior components by establishing target areas that must be properly padded or otherwise have energy absorbing properties to minimize head injury in the event of a crash. Compliance with the upper interior component requirements is determined, in part, by measuring the forces experienced by the Free Motion Headform test device (FMH) when it is propelled into certain targets on the vehicle interior at the speed of 24km/h (15 mph), or in some cases, at the reduced impact speed of 19 km/h (12 mph).

Air bag systems are frequently stowed (in their un-deployed state) in the same interior areas where certain test targets are located. Targets located on or near air bag systems are subject to reduced impact speed test requirements because the agency is concerned that requiring areas over the stowed portion of an air bag (or its attachment and other hardware) to meet more stringent 15 mph impact requirement could hinder their development and use. Thus, in order to accommodate the current systems and the development of new or additional air bag systems, we determined that use of a 12 mph impact speed, in conjunction with a full-vehicle dynamic side impact pole test, would best help realize the safety benefits of air bags. In relevant part, S6.2(b)(2) of FMVSS No. 201 reads as follows:

"Targets that are over any point inside the area measured along the contour of the vehicle interior within 50 mm (2.0 inch) of the periphery of the stowed system projected perpendicularly onto the vehicle interior surface, including mounting and inflation components but exclusive of any cover or covers, when the dynamically deployed upper interior head protection system is not deployed, shall be impacted by the free motion headform specified in S8.9 at any speed up to and including 19 km/h (12 mph) with the system undeployed" [emphasis added]

You ask if stowed side curtain tethers are considered part of the "stowed system" under S6.2(b)(2).As used in S6.2(b)(2), "stowed system" refers to a stowed dynamically deployed upper interior head protection system. The language ofS6.2(b)(2) specifies that in determining the area subject to reduced impact speed test requirements, consideration is taken of the stowed system, including mounting and inflation components but exclusive of any cover or covers. Side curtain air bag tethers are a part of the stowed dynamically deployed upper interior head protection system, and they are not "covers". Therefore, they are considered in determining whether the target issubject to reduced impact speed test requirements.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact George Feygin of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:201
d.4/17/06

ID: 9345

Cheryl Graham, District Manager
Northeast Region
ARI
P.O. Box 5039
Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054

Dear Ms. Graham:

We have received your letter of November 10, 1993, asking about the permissibility of aftermarket installation of an auxiliary pair of stop lamps "at each side of the rear window."

By way of background information the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act). Under that Act, the sole restraint upon modifications to vehicles in use is that, if performed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, the modifications must not "knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on . . . a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . ." (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)).

In NHTSA's view, if the modifications tend to impair the safety effectiveness of the "device or element of design", then, at the minimum, a partial inoperability may have occurred within the meaning of the statutory prohibition. The question raised by your letter, therefore, is whether the installation of the auxiliary stop lamps in that location would impair the effectiveness of the three original equipment stop lamps.

NHTSA decided to require the center highmounted stop lamp in addition to the then-existing original equipment two-lamp stop lamp system following research which indicated that a three- lamp system of this configuration was demonstrably more effective in preventing rear end crashes than other rear end lighting systems that were tested, and considerably lower in cost. Included in the testing was a four-lamp system which incorporated two lamps at each side of the rear window, but no tests were conducted on the five-lamp system you describe. The reasons for the better performance of the three-lamp system are unclear, but the triangular lighting array proved to be more effective than the trapezoidal four-lamp system (and more effective than a system tested which separated the usual stop lamp from the taillamp).

Your customer appears to believe that the ability of following drivers to avoid rear end crashes is enhanced by a five-lamp stop lamp system. On the other hand, your proposed system, by incorporating the two lamps at each side of the rear window, would appear to change the lighting array. We cannot say that the five-lamp system would either enhance or detract from safety. Thus, we cannot find that the additional lamps would "render inoperative" the original equipment three-lamp system, and it would be permissible under the regulations of this agency. However, the permissibility of such a modification would be determinable under State law. We are unable to advise you on the laws of the various States and suggest that you write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for an interpretation. Its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

You have also asked "if the work is done improperly and results in an accident, where does the liability lie?" This question is a matter of state law, and we suggest that you consult a local attorney concerning it.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:VSA d.2/7/94

ID: nht80-1.33

DATE: 03/18/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mercedes-Benz

COPYEE: JEROME N. SONOSKY

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter forwarded to us by Mr. Jerry Sonosky, requesting an interpretation of the term "overall width" as used in Safety Standard No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems. You ask questions: (1) whether overall width means the design width of a vehicle, or whether it means the maximum possible width allowed by design tolerances, and (2) whether overall width includes plastic, splash molding attached to the vehicle body with screws and nuts.

In answer to your first question, overall width means the maximum design width of the vehicle including tolerances.

Safety Standard No. 104 defines "overall width" as the maximum overall body width dimension "W116," as defined in section E, Ground Vehicle Practice, SAE Aero-space-Automotive Drawing Standards, September 1963. The "W116" standard specifies that overall width is measured across the body, excluding hardware and applied moldings, but including fenders when integral with the body. Therefore, the overall width of a vehicle would not include splash molding on the sides of the vehicle.

SINCERELY,

HOGAN & HARTSON

February 14, 1980

Hugh Oates Office of the General Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Hugh:

Enclosed is a request for interpretation of Standard 104 which our client, Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. asked us to forward directly to you.

Best wishes.

Jerome N. Sonosky

ENC.

CC: PROF. DR. W. REIDELBACH; CRAIG JONES

MERCEDES-BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.

November 16, 1979

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attn: Office of Chief Counsel

Subject: Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 104 - Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems; Request for Interpretation

Dear Madam or Sir:

Your interpretation is requested on the definition "Overall width" as used in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 104 - Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems. Section S 3. of that standard defines "Overall width" as being the maximum overall body width dimension "W116", as defined in section E, Ground Vehicle Practice, SAE Aerospace-Automotive Drawing Standards, September 1963. This second standard contains the statement that "Overall width" is measured across body, excluding hardware and applied moldings, but including fenders when integral with body.

Your interpretation of this definition is requested as follows:

1. Does overall width mean the design width of a vehicle, or does it mean the maximum (or minimum) possible width allowed by design tolerances?

2. Does overall width include plastic, splash molding attached to the vehicle body with screws and nuts. You will note in the attached drawing that this splash trim (cross-hatched) is the widest portion of the vehicle. However it is only an applied molding as shown both in the cross-section view as well as the vehicle photograph.

Should you require additional information on this request do not hesitate to contact Mr. G. M. Hespeler of our Safety Engineering Department - 201-573 2616.

HEINZ W. GERTH

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht74-4.32

DATE: 07/03/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Alfred Teves GMBH

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 10, 1974, request for permission to stamp label information on hose assemblies in place of banding, and to reduce S9.2.5 burst pressure from 350 to 100 psi, and your further request for an interpretation of the status of an in-line check valve as part of a vacuum brake hose.

The in-line check valve is not subject to Standard No. 106, Brake hoses, as a brake hose and fitting. In this configuration, the couplers depicted in your drawing are the clamps, and the check valve is a separate component to which the hose assemblies are attached.

The issue of stamping instead of banding will be answered in our upcoming Notice 11 in response to petitions for reconsideration of the brake hose standard.

Your petition for a reduction in the burst strength requirement for vacuum hoses is denied. The minimum burst pressure of 350 psi was established by the Society of Automotive Engineers in 1942, taking into consideration the effects of backfire pressure and the severe underhood environment to which vacuum hose may be exposed. Hoses with this burst pressure have provided excellent reliability and durability. We have no data to justify a reduction in burst strength in view of the two hazards just cited.

MAY 10, 1974

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration US Department of Transportation

Subject: Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106

(Docket no. 1-5, Notice 10

According to Notice 10 the designation of fittings was dropped due to objections raised by various manufactures because of insufficient clearness. For years we successfully used to emboss the date of manufacture on to the fittings (after the swaging process). We therefore ask you to extend item S 5.2.4 to the effect that in case of two-piece end fittings, which are attached by crimping or swaging, embossing of the designation on to the fittings will also be allowed instead of using a band.

The present standard according to which only a band will be allowed would be connected with a high degree of capital expenditure (reconstruction of entire assembly machinery) for the manufacturing department of Alfred Teves GmbH.

As far as vacuum brake hoses (see item S 9.2.5) are concerned, we think that a 350 psi burst strength is too high. The maximum operating pressure amounts to a vacuum of 0,80 bar, so that the required 350 psi would mean a 27-fold safety.

For this field of application a burst strength of 100 psi is sufficient. We therefore ask you to amend item S 9.2.5 to the effect that in the case of vacuum brake tubes the burst strength will be reduced to 100 psi.

Our production programm also comprises a vacuum check valve, which 1st mounted between two vacuum brake tubes, according to the attached sketch. We kindly ask you to inform us whether in the case of vacuum check valves the same requirements as are applicable for complete brake tubes regarding a burst strength of 350 psi (item S 9.2.5) and a minimum cross-section of 70% (item S 9.2.1) will be made.

Considering the near effective date of FMVSS, we would like to receive your answer concerning the three items mentioned above as soon as possible.

Yours sincerely

ALFRED TEVES GMBH

ppa.

i.V.

BELLER

Attachment

1 sketch

Ruckschiagventil

Schlauchhalter

Vakuumschiauch

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht74-5.52

DATE: 01/22/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: West & Wilkinson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 2, 1974 requesting information concerning the legal permissibility of an automobile dealership furnishing private passenger motor vehicles with add-on gasoline tanks or modifying existing gasoline tanks.

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, establishes minimum performance requirements for motor vehicle fuel systems. Compliance with the level of performance mandated by the standard is enforced by Section 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act which prohibits the manufacture, sale, delivery, or importation of vehicles or motor vehicle equipment that do not meet the requirements of applicable safety standards. Therefore, if your client modified a motor vehicle fuel tank in such a manner that it no longer complied with Standard No. 301 and then offered it for initial sale for purposes other than resale he would be in violation of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act and would be subject to civil penalties of not more than $ 1,000 for each such violation. If, however, your client performed a fuel tank modification on a vehicle that was already owned by and in the possession of a buyer who purchased the vehicle for purposes other than resale, no violation of the Act could result. The installation of an add-on fuel tank would be considered a modification. Therefore, the fuel system would have to comply with Standard No. 301 with the add-on fuel tank considered as part of the system.

There are no Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to add-on gasoline tanks since these are items of motor vehicle equipment and Standard No. 301 restricts its application to motor vehicles. Section 113(c)(2) of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, however, authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to determine whether or not an item of motor vehicle equipment contains a defect which relates to motor vehicle safety. If the Secretary finds that a safety-related defect exists, your client may be compelled to notify all purchasers of vehicles with the add-on fuel tanks of the attendant hazard.

The action of installing add-on gasoline tanks in motor vehicles exposes your client to the requirements of yet another safety regulation (49 CFR 567.7) If the vehicle in which he installs the fuel tank is a certified and complete vehicle that has not yet been purchased in good faith for purposes other than resale, your client will be considered an alterer of the vehicle, and he must provide a certification that the vehicle as altered still conforms to the standards.

YOURS TRULY,

WEST & WILKINSON January 2, 1974

Secretary of Transportation Department of Transportation

According to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Act, 15 USC Sections 1391 et seq., and particularly Section 1392, your office was empowered and directed to adopt minimum safety standards for motor vehicles. We do not have ready access to whatever standards have been promulgated but have received inquiry from a client concerning the existence of a specific provision in such standards. Specifically, my client, an automobile dealership, inquires if there is any prohibition(Illegible Word) civil or criminal sanctions on adding gasoline tanks to private passenger motor vehicles, including campers, or modifying existing gasoline tanks on such vehicles.

Your assistance will be appreciated.

Richard Wright West

ID: nht76-2.16

DATE: 07/30/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Thomas Built Buses' June 4, 1976, question whether the requirements in S5.1.3 and S5.1.4 of Standard No. 222, School Bus Seating and Crash Protection, to "Apply additional force . . . through the . . . loading bar until (a specified number) of inch-pounds of energy has been absorbed in deflecting the seat back . . ." can be satisfied in part by the energy that is returned to the load bar as it is withdrawn from the seat back. You also ask if there are minimum or maximum time limits on withdrawal of the loading bar from the seat surface.

The requirement for the absorption of a minimum amount of energy in (Illegible Word) the seat back in the forward and rearward directions is calculated to provide adequate measurement of the energy involved in the impact between the bus occupants and the seating in a percentage of school bus crashes. The agency calculated the amount of energy to be consumed by the seat back that would result in adequate protection. The specification requires the seat to "absorb" (i.e., receive without recoil) a specific amount of energy. This value is represented by the amount of energy that is not returned to the loading bar as it is withdrawn. Described graphically, the area that represents returned energy under the seat back force/deflection curve must be subtracted from the entire area that lies under the curve in order to calculate the energy "absorbed" by the seat back.

With regard to your second question, no time limits have been established for withdrawal of the loading bar. The agency intends to utilize a withdrawal time that is not more than five minutes so that creep will not be a significant factor in determining energy absorption. Because the time is not specified, the manufacturer is free to use any reasonable time that does not significantly affect the elastic and plastic components of the seat back loading.

thomas BUILT BUSES, INC.

June 4, 1976

Mr. Bob Krause Office of Standards Enforcement Motor Vehicle Programs U.S. Dept. of Transportation National Highway Traffic Administration

Re: Part 571 - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards - Para. 571.222 S5.1.4.1 & S5.1.4.2

Our engineering department is in the process of developing testing and analysis techniques for demonstration of compliance with the referenced section of FMVSS. To ensure that these techniques will meet all requirements, we are in need of further clarification of the paragraphs pertaining to seat back load application. Accordingly, we would appreciate answers from your department on the following specific questions:

(1) Para. 571.222 S5.1.4.2 specifies energy absorption of the seat back deflection during load application. What is the significance of or treatment required of the energy returned during the backing off of the loading bar?

(2) Are there any requirements regarding elapsed time interval for the load back-off?

(3) Same questions re Para. 571.222 S5.1.3 thru S5.1.3.4 - Seat Performance Forward.

Thank you for your prompt assistance in answering these questions.

Malcolm B. Mathieson Engineering Manager

ID: Braun

The Braun Corporation
631 W. 11^th St.
PO Box 310
Winamac, IN 46996

Dear Braun Corporation:

This responds to your letter concerning the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 403, Platform lifts installed for motor vehicles, and No. 404, Platform lift installations in motor vehicles, to lifts manufactured before the effective date. I have addressed your concerns below.

In a December 27, 2002, final rule, the agency established FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 in order to protect individuals that are aided by canes, walkers, wheelchairs, scooters, and other mobility devices and rely on platform lifts to enter/exit a motor vehicle (67 FR 79416; amended 69 FR 58843, October 1, 2004). FMVSS No. 403 is an equipment standard that specifies minimum performance requirements for platform lifts designed for installation on motor vehicles. FMVSS No. 404 requires that certain vehicles that are manufactured with platform lifts comply with a set of minimum requirements. The effective date of these standards has recently been delayed until April 1, 2005 for FMVSS No. 403 and July 1, 2005 for FMVSS No. 404 (69 FR 76865; December 23, 2004).

In your letter, you expressed concern that individuals would not be able to have a lift that was manufactured prior to the effective date installed on a vehicle that was manufactured on or after the effective date. You explained that it is a common practice for lift users to transfer a lift from one vehicle to another. You expressed concern that FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 will prohibit a lift user from having a lift transferred to a vehicle that was manufactured after the effective date of FMVSS No. 404.

Generally, FMVSSs apply to motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment up to their first retail sale. See 49 U.S.C. 30112. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to all applicable FMVSSs before the products can be offered for sale. After the first retail sale of a vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. 49 U.S.C. 30122.

The "make inoperative" provision only applies to standards with which a vehicle is certified as complying. If a vehicle with a manufacture date of July 1, 2005, or later is manufactured with a lift, that vehicle must comply with FMVSS No. 404. However, if after first retail sale a platform lift is added to a vehicle manufactured either before or after July 1, 2005, that was not equipped with a lift at first retail sale, there is no duty for a modifier to bring that vehicle into compliance with FMVSS No. 404; i.e. , there is no requirement to equip the modified vehicle with a lift that complies with FMVSS No. 403. Therefore, in such instances, a lift user would be able to have a non-compliant lift taken from an older vehicle and installed on a vehicle that he or she had previously purchased.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any additional questions please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:403#404
d.1/3/04

ID: nht95-4.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 26, 1995

FROM: Carol Stroebel -- Director of Intergovernmental Affairs, NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Bart Stupak -- U.S. House of Representatives

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/21/95 LETTER FROM BART STUPAK TO BRENDA BROWN

TEXT: Dear Mr. Stupak:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

ID: nht95-7.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 26, 1995

FROM: Carol Stroebel -- Director of Intergovernmental Affairs, NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Bart Stupak -- U.S. House of Representatives

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/21/95 LETTER FROM BART STUPAK TO BRENDA BROWN

TEXT: Dear Mr. Stupak:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.