ID: 1810y

Ms. Karen E. Finkel
Executive Director
National School Transportation Association
P.O. Box 2639
Springfield, VA 22152

Dear Ms. Finkel:

This responds to your recent letter to my office asking whether school buses used by school bus contractors regulated by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) must have push-out windows, even when those buses are used for purposes other than school transportation.

The answer to your question depends on the effect of our and FWHA regulations on the vehicles in question. We will only address the effect of NHTSA's requirements in this letter, and will ask FHWA to reply to you directly on FHWA requirements for push-out windows.

Under NHTSA's requirements, the answer is no. As you know, the buses you describe would have to comply with our Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) for school buses if they are sold as "school buses," i.e., for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events. (49 CFR /571.3) The determination of the intended use of the vehicle would be made at the time the new vehicle is first sold to the "school bus contractors." Any person selling the new buses to the contractors who knows that the vehicles would be used as school buses would be required to sell complying school buses. Since vehicles need only meet the FMVSS's applicable to their vehicle type (e.g., "school buses"), the school buses need not meet FMVSS's for non-school buses, even though the school buses might also be used for purposes other than school transportation. Conversely, any person selling a bus to a contractor knowing that the bus would not be so used, would not be required to sell a complying school bus.

FMVSS No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, does not generally require push-out windows for school buses, except a push-out rear window is required if a manufacturer decides to satisfy FMVSS No. 217's school bus emergency exit requirements by selecting the option (S5.2.3.1(b)) that calls for such a window.

Further, FMVSS No. 217 does not require push-out windows for non-school buses. The agency proposed to require push-out windows for non-school buses early in the rulemaking history of Standard No. 217 (35 FR 13025; August 15, 1970), but decided against such a requirement because devices other than push-out windows appeared to be effective for emergency egress. 37 FR 9394; May 10, 1972. Thus, new buses sold to bus operators for non-school bus purposes need not have push-out windows under Standard No. 217.

For your information, NHTSA has issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (53 FR 44623; November 4, 1988) to review Standard No. 217's emergency exit requirements for school buses. Among the issues under consideration by the agency is the desirability of a requirement for push-out windows. NHTSA is presently reviewing the comments received on the notice. A copy of the notice is enclosed.

In summary, a new bus sold for purposes that include carrying school children must meet our FMVSS's for school buses. This is so even if the bus is also used for non-school purposes. Our FMVSS's for school and non-school buses do not now generally require push-out windows.

We expect the FHWA will provide you with an interpretation of their requirements for push-out windows shortly.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

/ref:217 d:4/27/89

ID: 1984-2.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/28/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Regional Administrator, NHTSA Region V

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Legal Opinion - School Bus Definition Change Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Regional Administrator, NHSTA Region V

This responds to your May 10, 1984, memo regarding Representative Mautino's bill, NB 3117, which would amend the Illinois Vehicle Code to exclude from the definition of "school bus" any vehicle designed to carry 15 or fewer passengers. The Illinois Department of Transportation asked what the consequences would be if this amendment were enacted into law. You referred their inquiry to this office for our reply.

HB 3117 would classify as "school buses" vehicles which are designed to carry 16 or more passengers that are owned by or operated for a school, for the transportation of students. Our Federal regulations define a bus to be a motor vehicle designed to carry more than 10 persons and further define a school bus to be a bus that is sold for the purposes of carrying students to and from school or related events. The decision of Illinois not to adopt the Federal classification has no effect on the application of the Federal school bus safety standard to that vehicle. The Federal school bus safety standards would apply to vehicles that meet the Federal definition of a school bus, regardless of whether the vehicle is considered a school bus under the state regulations. Of course, the Federal standards apply only to those vehicles that were manufactured after the effective date of the standards, April 1, 1977.

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act states generally that no State shall have in effect any State standard regulating an aspect of performance that is regulated by a Federal safety standard unless the State standard is identical to the Federal standard. State standards that are not identical are preempted by the Safety Act unless they impose a higher level of safety and are applicable only to vehicles procured for the State's own use.

Thus the preemptive effect of section 103(d) is not altered by the fact that a vehicle classified as a school bus under the Safety Act is classified as some other type of motor vehicle under State law. Regardless of how Illinois classifies a particular vehicle, if there are Federal standards regulating certain aspects of performance of the vehicle, any State standards regulating the same aspects of performance must be identical except, as already noted, when it sets a higher standard of performance for a vehicle procurred for the State's own use.

A state decision to adopt all or none of the Federal standards applicable to a type of motor vehicle has no effect on the necessity under the Safety Act of manufacturing such a motor vehicle is accordance with the Federal standards. Further, any person selling vehicles for use in school transportation which fail to comply with all applicable safety standards is violating the Safety Act and is subject to a maximum penalty of $1,000 per violation. We note further that use of noncomplying vehicles as school buses could result in potential liability problems for the users of the vehicle if the buses are involved in accidents.

The proposed State definition change also would not affect the definition of school bus used by the agency for the purposes of Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17.

ID: 2789y

Mr. Joe W. Humphrey
10250 Goodman Road, #l0l
Olive Branch, MS 38654

Dear Mr. Humphrey:

This is in reply to your letter of November 9, 1990, with respect to the center high-mounted stop lamp.

You have asked if it is acceptable to add amber turn signal lamps to each side of the center stop lamp. The answer is yes, if the turn signal lamps are separate from the stop lamp. Under the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on lighting, the center stop lamp cannot be combined with any other lamp or reflective device.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:l2/l3/90

ID: nht90-3.22

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 19, 1990

FROM: T. Spingler, Robert Bosch, GmbH

TO: Rich v. Iderstine -- Office of Rulemaking, NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS 108, S.3. Definitions

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-2-90 to T. Spingler from P. J. Rice; (A35; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Five weeks ago (06/14/90) I discussed the word "bonded lens" with Larry Ayers, ETL, regarding headlamps with movable reflector and "VHAD". Usually we in Europe use rubber-seal and clips to fix the lens to the housing. To meet the requirements of FMVSS 108, Larry proposed to fix the lens of those headlamps by adding e.g. silicone-glue at four places between lens and housing to prevent the removal of the lens. Jerry Medlin, whom we called that day, agreed to that interpretation. To get an official int erpretation, I ask you to write me a letter regarding this "problem".

ID: nht88-1.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: FEBRUARY 11, 1988

FROM: GARRY GALLAGHER -- VICE PRESIDENT, METZELER MOTORCYCLE TIRE

TO: LARRY COOK -- NHTSA OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNCIL

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO MAY 31, 1988 LETTER FROM JONES TO GALLAGHER

TEXT: Thank you for your help, over the phone on February 9, 1988 in regards to additional wording to be added to the sidewall of our ME88 Marathon model motorcycle tire. To refresh your memory, I inquired as to adding the word "reinforced" to the sidewall. Your verbal response, after checking with legal council, was that there is no problem with adding the word "reinforced".

I would now like to request a written confirmation and approval to add the word "reinforced" to the sidewall of our ME88 Marathon rear tire model. Please let me know if you need any further information on this matter.

Sincerely,

ID: nht76-5.35

DATE: 11/02/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Yokohama Tire Corp.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing to confirm your October 15,1976, telephone conversation with Mark Schwimmer of this office, concerning the effective dates of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS) (49 CFR Part 575.104).

As Mr. Schwimmer explained, (i) the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has not yet established new effective dates for the UTQGS regulation; (ii) when the new effective dates are established, they will be announced in the Federal Register; and (iii) the interval between the announcement of the effective dates and the dates themselves will be sufficient to allow manufacturers to prepare for compliance with the regulation.

For your convenience, an information sheet entitled "Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standard and Regulations" is enclosed.

ID: 77-1.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/11/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Hon. M. C. Hatfield - U.S. Senate

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: With regard to my letter to you of July 1, 1976, concerning the application of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars, to the paver manufactured by Layton Manufacturing Company of Salem, Oregon, I would like to advise you of a clarification of the requirements of the standard that may be relevant to Layton's product.

Essentially, it has been clarified that the requirement of S5.1.1 of the standard accommodates a manufacturer's decision to equip its motor vehicle with tires other than "tires for highway service." This means that Layton can choose to use tires that do not conform to the requirements set forth in S5.1.1 of the standard. I have enclosed a copy of the notice that contains a detailed discussion of this clarification.

ID: nht93-8.8

DATE: November 11, 1993

FROM: Kathryn A. Roach -- Paralegal to Lloyd D. Levenson, Cooper Perskie April Niedelman Wagenheim & Levenson

TO: Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: None $125 (OCC-9344)

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/10/94 from John Womack to Kathryn A. Roach (A42; Std. 208), letter dated 1/19/90 from Stephen P. Wood to Linda L. Conrad (Std. 208), and letter dated 3/4/93 from John Womack to Robert A. Ernst

TEXT:

Please be advised that I spoke with the chief engineer at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration who told me there is no regulation under the federal law which would require air bag replacement.

I would request that the above information be confirmed, in writing. The chief engineer provided me with your address, so that I could obtain the requested information.

Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions concerning the above.

ID: 1983-2.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/08/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Athey Products Corporation -- Roderic A. Esmonde

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Roderic A. Esmonde, P.E. Athey Products Corporation Capital Equipment Division P.O. Box 669 Raleigh, NC 27602

Dear Mr. Esmonde:

This responds to your recent letter concerning the requirements of Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. You enclosed a sample of a rigid plastic you would like to use on the side windows of street sweepers, and asked whether the standard would be applicable to that type of material.

Safety Standard No. 205 specifies performance and location requirements for glazing materials to be used on motor vehicles. Only those materials that are specified in the standard may be used on a vehicle, and only in the vehicle location specified for each glazing type. Thus, the sample you enclosed may be used only if it qualifies as one of the glazing types (Items) specified in the standard. A specific piece of glazing material qualifies as a particular glazing Item under the standard if it meets all of the performance tests specified in the standard for that Item. For example, your sample would be considered an Item 12 rigid plastic, which could be used in the vehicle locations specified for that glazing type, only if it passes all of the tests specified in the standard for Item 12 plastics.

Whether or not your sample does qualify as a permitted glazing Item under the standard will have to be determined by your company. The agency does not provide advance approval for any motor vehicle or piece of motor vehicle equipment. It is the manufacturer's responsibility to determine compliance with the Motor vehicle safety standards and to certify that compliance.

I would also note that the glazing manufacturer is required to certify, by markings etched on the material, any piece of glazing which is to be used in a motor vehicle (see S6. of Standard No. 205). These required markings would include a specification of the glazing type, e.g., "Item 12." The glazing sample you enclosed should be from a piece of certified material if that material is to be used on your motor vehicles.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

JulY 12, 1983

Mr. Hugh Oates, Compliance Division

Dear Mr. Oates:

Please find attached a copy of our letter of June 15, which we fear must have gone astray.

We would appreciate your cooperation in giving us an early response so we may proceed further with our plans.

Roderic A. Esmonde P.E. Director of Engineering

June 15, 1983

Mr. Hugh Oates, Compliance Division, NHTSA

Dear Mr. Oates:

This will confirm our recent conversation regarding glazing materials for the front and side windows of street sweepers.

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #205 defines the requirements for glazing materials for use in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment.

Section S5.1.2.1. Item 12 Rigid Plastics, and Section S5.1.2.2. Item 13 Flexible Plastics, define where these materials can be used.

We have been seriously considering using some form of Rigid Plastic for the side windows of the street sweepers we build. We enclose a sample piece of this material.

Would you be so kind as to advise us if the subject regulation also applies to this specific type as well.

Your kind cooperation and guidance is gratefully appreciated since we are, as such, neophytes in this area.

Yours very truly, ATHEY PRODUCTS CORPORATION

Roderic A. Esmonde, P.E. Director of Engineering

RAE/pfw

Enclosure Omitted.

ID: nht68-2.6

DATE: 05/14/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; David A. Fay; NHTSA

TO: White Motor Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of April 16, 1968, to Mr. Lowell K. Bridwell, Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, requesting a clarification of the electrical circuity arrangements that may be used to meet the requirements of paragraph S3.4.3 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Truck-tractors wired in accordance with your customers' orders stating, "the brown trailer circuit shall be connected to the headlamp switch and the black trailer circuit shall be energized through a seperate switch," will meet the requirements of paragraph 53.4.3, provided the trailer circuits conform to SAE Standard J560a. With this circuitry, your responsibility as a truck-tractor manufacturer would be fulfilled, regardless of the number of trailers that are towed by the truck-tractor.

Thank you for writing.