ID: 19882.drn

Pastor Carlo DeStefano
Fairwinds Baptist Church
801 Seymour Road
Bear, DE 19701

Dear Pastor DeStefano:

This responds to your April 14, 1999, letter requesting information on Federal statutes governing school bus safety. Dorothy Nakama of my staff spoke to your secretary, who informed us that your church operates Fairwinds Christian School, which teaches students from kindergarten through twelfth grade. Ms. Nakama was informed that you seek information about the school bus safety laws administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to determine what your responsibilities are when transporting your students.

I am pleased to provide the following information. NHTSA is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles. Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112 requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable standards. Accordingly, persons selling or leasing a new "school bus" must sell or lease a vehicle that meets the safety standards applicable to school buses. Our statute defines a "schoolbus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying a driver and more than 10 passengers and which, NHTSA decides, is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events. 49 U.S.C. 30125. By regulation, the capacity threshold for school buses corresponds to that of buses -- vehicles designed for carrying more than ten (10) persons. For example, a 15-person van that is likely to be used significantly to transport students is a "school bus."

Our statute thus regulates primarily manufacturers and sellers of new school buses. Any person selling a new school bus must sell a vehicle that is certified as meeting our school bus standards. Conventional buses (including 15-passenger vans) are not certified as doing so, and thus cannot be sold, as new vehicles, under circumstances where they are likely to be used to carry students on a regular basis.

In general, our school bus safety statute does not regulate school bus users. Instead, each State has the authority to set its own standards regarding the use of motor vehicles, including school buses. You should check Delaware law to see what your State law requires when your private school transports its students. For information on Delaware's requirements, you can contact Delaware's State Director of Pupil Transportation:

Mr. Ronald Love, State Supervisor, School Transportation
Delaware Department of Education
P. O. Box 1402
Dover, DE 19903
Telephone: (302) 739-4696

In closing, we wish to emphasize that school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country, and that we therefore strongly recommend that all buses that are used to transport school children be certified as meeting NHTSA's school bus safety standards. Further, using buses that do not meet NHTSA's school bus standards to transport students could result in increased liability in the event of a crash. Since such liability would be determined by State law, you may wish to consult with your attorney and insurance carrier for advice on this issue.

I hope this information is helpful. For more information about the safety features of a school bus, I am enclosing NHTSA's publication: "School Bus Safety: Safe Passage for America's Children." If you have any further questions please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:VSA#571.3
d.5/25/99

ID: 7113

Mr. Shigeyoshi Aihara
Manager, Information Services
Ichikoh America, Inc.
Suite 220
3025 Boardwalk Drive
Ann Arbor, MI 48108-1777

Dear Mr. Aihara:

This responds to your letter of March 16, 1992, requesting an interpretation of the applicability of the moisture prohibition of S7.4(i)(6) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Initially, we would like to call your attention to the fact that S7.4(i)(6), which you quoted in its entirety, was amended on March 11, 1991, to delete the requirement that a headlamp meet the photometric requirements after a humidity test. S7.4(i)(6) now states in pertinent part that, after a humidity test conducted in accordance with S8.7, "the inside of the headlamp shall show no evidence of delamination or moisture, fogging or condensation visible without magnification."

You have attached a drawing of a vented headlamp with an onboard aiming system. The headlamp is available with two different types of bubble indicators. Your first question is: "After the humidity test, both types . . . show the fogging in the location as shown in attached sketches. But, this fogging is gone at normal temperature. * * * Is such fogging acceptable after the humidity test?" Your second question is whether "'the inside of the housing' means the lens and reflector portions" or "the entire inside portion of headlamps?"

The humidity test was adopted for replaceable bulb headlamps in l983. Allowing humidity or water in headlamps causes slow degradation of the reflector over the long term. The presence of humidity results in spots on the reflector and lens, and eventual photometric failure. The humidity test is designed to assure that the vents in vented headlamps eliminate moisture in the headlamp when exposed to air flow with the headlamps off, thus assuring adequate performance in long term use. The provision for onboard headlamp aiming devices was not adopted until 1989, and, with respect to replaceable bulb headlamps, did not specify that they be located within the headlamp. From the foregoing, it is evident that the humidity test for replaceable bulb headlamps was not adopted to address a problem inherent in the exposure of onboard aiming devices to moisture. These devices were not in use at the time the humidity test was added to Standard No. 108, and they do not contribute directly to the photometric performance of the headlamp.

From the diagram you enclosed, the aiming device appears located behind the reflector. It is not possible to determine from your letter whether moisture forms on the exterior or the interior of the aiming device. Although S7.4(i)(6) prohibits moisture "inside the headlamp" and the aiming device is located inside the headlamp, we would not read the prohibition as extending to the aiming device if the moisture occurs inside that device.

Even if the moisture occurs on the exterior of the aiming device, it does not affect the photometric properties of the headlamp. The agency does not wish to impose inadvertent design restrictions that are not directed towards safety, and therefore regards any moisture that may occur on the exterior of the aiming device as outside the prohibition of S7.4(i)(6). This interpretation, however, is limited to the specific design that you have presented.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:5/6/92

ID: nht94-3.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 21, 1994

FROM: Ralph Harpster -- Laguna Mfg, Inc., Turlock, CA

TO: Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-15-94 from John Womack to Ralph Harpster (A42; STD. 208)

TEXT: I have been referred to your office for clarification of a program that utilizes the retro-fitting of seat belts in the rear of police vehicles.

Our company manufacturers a replacement rear seat used for the transport of prisoners in police cars. Police vehicles face special needs in the equipment they use and the methods they use to transport arrestees.

As you can well imagine, a great number of persons placed in the rear of a police car, under arrest, are not co-operative, nor do they particularly wish to go to jail, therefore, it is of significant importance that they be solidly restrained and unable to get loose in the rear of the vehicle, for obvious reasons.

Unfortunately the seat belt system used by the car manufacturer, while adequate to the task in a collision, will not restrain the prisoner under transport conditions due to the inertia reel retractor system. This allows the person belted in to exercise great range of motion and thus they can extricate themselves from the belt system. They can not only cause a great deal of damage to the vehicle, themselves and the police officer in an attempt to kick out the windows and escape, but can expose themselv es to a significant risk of injury should a collision occur while they are out of the belt.

In an effort to simplify the transport process, we furnish a molded seat that accomplishes several tasks. First, the seat will hold a prisoner upright and in place due to its molded configuration. Secondly, the seat eliminates the ability of the prison er to hide contraband, i.e. drugs, weapons etc. Thirdly the molded seat can be washed or disinfected thus helping a police dept. in its policy to overcome the problems associated with blood borne pathogens. Our query lies in the first task enumerated a bove. We retrofit the car with a seat belt system that overcomes the problem associated with the inertia reel retractor system. In our system we utilize a belt that pulls snugly, in a positive restraint mode and does not use a retractor. When the offi cer places the prisoner in the seat, the belt system is latched in place just as any seat belt would be, then the belt is manually pulled tight and remains in that position until manually released. We use a shoulder lap combination belt for meeting the 3 point fastening criteria, and we use only belts certified to meet M.V.S.S. 209-302. Additionally we use factory seat belt mounting locations. We desire that you review our stated use and render an opinion regarding the use of this system and, if in y our opinion, it fits the criteria established for retrofitting.

I would also, separately, like an opinion if a single shoulder belt could possibly meet any of the requirements. I realize that, like many agencies today, you have to deal with an increasingly heavy workload, but I would be extremely grateful if your of fices could give this the earliest possible consideration as we are trying very hard to do things in the most straight forward and compliant manner that we can.

I will take the liberty of thanking you in advance for any courtesy and consideration you can tender us.

ID: nht88-2.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/09/88

FROM: LARRY P. EGLEY

TO: LEWIS BUCHANAN -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/09/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO LARRY P. EGLEY; REDBOOK A33 [2]; STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 01/17/89 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA; OCC 3028; LETTER DATED 05/23/89 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO KAT HLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA; LETTER DATED 09/10/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA; OCC 2530; REPORT DATED 09/10/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY, REQUEST FOR EVALUATION / INTERPRETATION OF PROPOSED INVENTION, SUDDEN STOP FLASHER [SSF]; REPORT DATED 09 /07/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY, AN APPEAL FOR VARIANT INTERPRETATION OF NHTSA STANDARDS AS THEY RELATE TO BRAKE LIGHTS AND THE SUDDEN STOP FLASHER [SSF]; LETTER DATED 07/13/88 FROM KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA TO LARRY P. EGLEY; LETTER DATED 06/23/88 FROM LARRY P. EGLEY TO RALPH HITCHCOCK -- NHTSA; OCC 2256; LETTER DATED 06/20/88 FROM LEWIS S. BUCHANAN -- EPA TO LARRY P. EGLEY; OCC 2199

TEXT: Dear Mr. Buchanan:

I have invented a concept which I believe could significantly improve automobile safety. I call this concept the Sudden Stop Flasher (SSF).

The SSF would work in conjunction with standard automobile brake lights. During the routine deceleration range, the brake lights would function normally. However, at an unusually high braking deceleration rate, such as when the driver suddenly sees a dog on the road or an accident ahead, the SSF system would utilize a pendulum-type decelerometer in conjunction with a special high-speed flasher to rapidly flash the brake lights automatically (such as drivers sometimes try to do themselves but only whe n they have time!).

To increase the effective flash rate, and the "attention-getting index," the high-mount light would flash in rapid sequence with the two lower brake lights, the latter two flashing simualtanously.

I believe this concept would be especially effective in preventing high-speed crashes such as on an Interstate highway when separation intervals are greater and when rapid deceleration may be completely unexpected. These crashes too frequently result in ruptured gas tanks and fatalities.

The SSF would also be especially applicable, I believe, to sutomobiles with anti-skid brakes, because of their superior braking performance. While anti-skid brakes may be highly effective, ironically, automobiles without anti-skid brakes travelling b ehind them may crash into them because of inferior braking performance.

With or without anti-skid braking involved, however, the automatic signal that a high-deceleration slowdown or stop is occuring up ahead could often provide the critical second or two of advance warning which could be the difference between a safe sto p and disaster.

Patent application activity is in progress. However, before I invest more money to develop this concept, I want to be reasonably sure it is not likely to be categorically disapproved by NHTSA. While I do not expect approval, of course, based on only a general description, I would very much appreciate your preliminary comments concerning the prospects of this concept, as well as any related advice you may have to offer.

Because patent activity is in progress, I would appreciate reasonable confidentially.

I would hope to receive a reply from you within 30 days of this date, June 9, 1988.

Thank you very much for your attention.

ID: aiam5588

Dear Senator Chvala: This responds to a letter from U.S. Senato Russell D. Feingold on your behalf, asking whether a pending redefinition of Wisconsin's 'school bus' definition would violate Federal law. Senator Feingold contacted the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) because our agency administers the Federal requirements for school buses. I appreciate this opportunity to address your concerns. As explained below, my review leads me to conclude that Wisconsin's contemplated redefinition of a school bus would not conflict with Federal law, insofar as the redefinition relates to the operation of school buses. However, an area of possible conflict relates to the requirements for mirrors on school buses. By way of background information, Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code, authorizes NHTSA to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) applicable to new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. In 1974, Congress directed NHTSA to require new school buses to meet FMVSS's on specific aspects of school bus safety, including floor strength, seating systems, and crashworthiness. The legislation requires each person selling a new 'school bus' to ensure that the vehicle is certified as meeting the school bus FMVSS's. Following the first retail purchase, the use of vehicles becomes a matter of state regulation. NHTSA defines a 'school bus' as a 'bus' that is sold for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, and defines a 'bus' as a vehicle designed to carry 11 or more persons. 49 CFR 571.3. We understand that the new definition contemplated by Wisconsin would exclude some vehicles that are school buses under our definition. Information from Mr. Doug Burnett of your staff indicates that the new definition would define a school bus as 'a motor vehicle which carries 16 or more passengers (in addition to the operator).' Thus, a motor vehicle that can carry 11-16 persons (including the driver) would be a 'school bus' for Federal purposes, but apparently not for Wisconsin's purposes. Since the States, and not NHTSA, regulate the use of vehicles, the inconsistency would be immaterial with regard to requirements adopted by Wisconsin pertaining to the use of school buses. Wisconsin may set the operational requirements for those vehicles the State defines as 'school buses' without regard to our school bus definition. However, the inconsistency would matter at the point of sale of a new school bus. The FMVSS's specify requirements for school buses that do not apply to other buses. See, e.g., 49 CFR part 571.222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection. A decision by Wisconsin to adopt a definition other than the Federal definition of a school bus has no effect on the application of the Federal school bus safety standards to a vehicle. Any person selling a new 'bus' (a vehicle designed to carry 11 or more persons) to a school must sell a certified 'school bus,' regardless of whether the vehicle is considered a school bus under Wisconsin law. The vehicle would have to be equipped with the safety features NHTSA requires for school buses. The information provided by Mr. Burnett indicates that Wisconsin would redefine 'school bus' for two purposes. First, Wisconsin would prohibit the operation of a 'school bus'--a vehicle with a capacity of 17 persons (including the driver)--unless the bus has a specific type of mirror. (Section 347.40) As explained above, this requirement would not affect NHTSA's requirement that vehicles considered to be 'school buses' under our definition must be equipped with the mirrors and other safety features we require for school buses, even if the vehicles are not 'school buses' under Wisconsin law. Chapter 301 further provides that a Federal standard preempts any state or local standard applicable to the same aspect of performance that is not identical to the Federal standard. 49 U.S.C. 30103(b). A State standard for mirrors that is not identical to the Federal standard is preempted unless it imposes a higher level of safety and is applicable only to vehicles procured for the State's own use (e.g., public school buses). Wisconsin's requirements for school bus mirrors could be preempted, depending on the type of mirror required and whether the vehicles equipped with it are public buses. We understand that the second purpose of Wisconsin's contemplated redefinition of a school bus is to require privately-owned vehicles carrying 15 or fewer students to be insured by a policy providing specified minimum coverage. (Section 121.555). This provision concerns matters wholly within State law and would not conflict with Federal law. I hope the above information is helpful to you. If you have any further questions or need additional information, please contact me or Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address, or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel cc: The Honorable Russell D. Feingold United States Senate 502 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510;

ID: aiam0863

Dear Mr. Yeoman: This is in reply to your letter of August 9, 1972, concerning th application of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials'.; You ask whether mattress stuffing must meet the requirements of th Standard. Paragraph S4.1 of the Standard lists mattress covers only. This does not include the mattress stuffing.; You also ask whether the stuffing in a 'dual purpose passenger seat must meet the requirements of the Standard. Paragraph S4.1 includes 'seat cushions' and 'seat backs'. Since the Standard does apply to the filling material in seat cushions and seat backs, the stuffing in a 'dual purpose passenger seat' must also meet the requirements of the Standard even though it may be converted into a bed.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0601

Dear Mr. Bond: This is in reply to your letters of December 2, 1971, and February 11 1972, concerning Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials.' You ask whether the standard is applicable to interior lighting of any material, either plastic or otherwise. Under the present language of the standard, interior lighting would only be subject to it if the manufacturer has, as specified in S4.1 of the standard, designed it to 'absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash.' The NHTSA is presently reviewing the necessity of this requirement, and it may be revised in the near future.; We regret the delay in responding to your letter. Your truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0621

Dear Mr. Stewart: This is in reply to your letter of February 25, 1972, concerning Moto Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302. In your letter you ask whether the standard applies to drapery hardware and cords, plastic pulleys and carriers, and if so, whether burn rates for these components can be based on the 'Modern Plastics Encyclopedia,' which in turn is based on ASTM Test Method D635.; The standard lists the categories of interior components to which i applies. This list does not include drapery hardware, cords, plastic pulleys, or carriers, and we do not consider the standard to apply to those items.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0836

Dear Mr. Abeles: This is in reply to your letter of August 10, 1972, concerning th application of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials', to mattress assemblies.; Paragraph S4.1 of the Standard lists mattress covers only. This doe not include the complete mattress assembly. Accordingly, you are correct in your assumption that only the mattress covers must meet the burn rate requirement of Paragraph S4.3. You are also correct in your assumption that mattress assemblies which are not designed to absorb energy on contact with occupants in crash situations are not subject to the Standard.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5172

"Dear Mr. Schmidt: Your letter requesting information about regulation that might affect substitution of a diesel engine for a 'worn out' gasoline engine has been referred to my office for reply. I apologize for the delay in answering. By way of background, NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with the FMVSS's. Instead, under the Safety Act, each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. We do not have any requirements that would apply to the conversion of a vehicle from gasoline to diesel if the conversion is made by you on your own vehicle. The Safety Act and our regulations generally do not apply to a vehicle after the vehicle is sold to a consumer for purposes other than resale. Although the Safety Act prohibits certain entities from tampering with or removing federally required safety systems, the prohibition does not apply to modifications by a vehicle owner to his or her own vehicle. If the diesel engine were substituted for the gasoline engine by a vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, the installer would not have to certify the vehicle as described above. Instead, 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act requires any of these parties making the substitution to ensure that it did not knowingly render inoperative any device or system of design installed in compliance with any applicable safety standard, such as Standard 301, 'Fuel System Integrity' (49 CFR 571.301, copy enclosed). The purpose of Standard 301 is to reduce deaths and injuries occurring from fires that result from fuel spillage during and after motor vehicle crashes. The prohibition of 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who alter their own vehicles. Thus, under our requirements, individual owners may install any item regardless of its effect on compliance with the FMVSS's. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to tamper with vehicle safety equipment if the modification would degrade the safety of the vehicle. You also asked if any law forbade diesel conversions in zones within your state in which emissions tests are required. We suggest you contact the Environmental Protection Agency for any questions concerning emissions and air quality. The general telephone number for the EPA is (202) 382-2090. You should also contact the state of Wisconsin for emissions testing regulations. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any more questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please contact David Elias of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure";