ID: nht95-2.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 10, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Edward Gower, Esq. -- Chief-Counsel, Illinois Department of Transportation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 1/27/95 LETTER FROM J. RANDLE SCHICK TO SUSAN KUNKEL (OCC 10696)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Gower:

In response to a request by Larry Wort, Chief of the Bureau of Safety Programs, I have reviewed the provisions of Senate Bill No. 52, now awaiting action in the Illinois General Assembly, to determine whether the provisions relating to school buses would conflict with applicable Federal law. My review leads me to conclude that there is a conflict that could result in Federal preemption in some circumstances. I am specifically concerned about the bill's redefinition of "school bus."

By way of background information, Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code (Safety Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and equipment p rior to sale to the first retail purchaser. Following the first retail purchase, the use of vehicles becomes a matter of state concern. The Safety Act 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)

NHTSA defines a "bus" as a passenger motor vehicle designed to carry more than 10 persons, and further defines a "school bus" as a bus that is sold for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, except a bus sold for op eration as a common carrier in urban transportation. 49 CFR 571.3.

Senate Bill No. 52 proposes to amend the definition of "school bus" in section 1-182 of 625 ILCS by excluding

3. A motor vehicle designed for the transportation of not less than 7 nor more than 16 persons that is operated by or for a public or private primary or secondary school, including any primary or secondary school operated by a religious institution, for the purpose of transporting not more than 15 students to and from interscholastic athletic or other interscholastic or school sponsored activities.

There is thus an inconsistency between the definition in 49 CFR 571.3 and the definition in Senate Bill No. 52, since a vehicle with a capacity of 11-16 persons that is sold for school transportation would be a school bus for Federal purposes but not for State purposes.

This inconsistency matters at the point of sale of a school bus. The Federal safety standards impose a number of requirements on school buses that do not apply to other buses. See, e.g., 49 CFR 571.222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection . If a dealer were to sell a 11-16 person bus to a school for use in transporting students, the Federal school bus requirements would apply, notwithstanding the State law's exclusion of such a bus from the school bus definition.

I want to stress that the Federal law applies to dealers as well as to manufacturers. The obligations of a dealer are set forth at 49 U.S.C.30112(a), which provides that no one may manufacture or sell a new motor vehicle to which a vehicle safety standa rd applies unless the vehicle complies with the standard. A dealer who sells a bus for school use that does not meet the school bus standards would thus violate the law.

The amendment in Senate Bill No. 52 which would add 105 ILCS 5/29-6.3 is not inconsistent with the Safety Act. It has been our position that vehicles that do not comply with applicable Federal school bus safety standards may be borrowed or rented on a o ne-time or very occasional basis to transport students. Operators should be cautioned, however, that transporting students in other than complying school buses could result in additional liability in the event of an accident.

I hope the above information is helpful to you. If you have any further questions or need additional information, you may contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-2.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 10, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: R. C. Rost -- Minnesota Body & Equipment

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 11/8/94 LETTER FROM R. C. ROST TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNCIL (OCC 10496)

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking whether Federal law requires buses used for Head Start to be equipped with flashing lights and stop signal arms. You stated that the state of Minnesota recently adopted a law that prohibits such buses from being equip ped with flashing lights and stop signal arms. I apologize for the delay in our response.

In an August 26, 1988 letter to you, NHTSA explained that "Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to buses defined under Federal law as school buses continue to apply in all respects to buses used to carry preprimary school pupils suc h as those in Head Start programs." Federal law continues to require such buses to comply with all applicable FMVSSs. Accordingly, the Head Start buses referenced in your letter must be equipped with flashing lights and stop signal arms. We have writte n to Major Glen Gramse of the Minnesota State Patrol to explain that the Minnesota law is preempted by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to school buses.

I hope this information will be useful. If you have any further questions or desire any further information, please feel free to contact Mr. Walt Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-2.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 10, 1995

FROM: Terrence S. Lockman -- Legal Investigator; Levin, Middlebrooks, Mabie, Thomas, Mayes & Mitchell

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/2/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO TERRENCE LOCKMAN (REDBOOK 2 VSA 102 (3))

TEXT: Dir Sir and/or Madam:

I am currently conducting an investigation involving a 1981 Versa Sweeper, manufactured by Terrain King, Sequin, Texas.

While conducting research it has become difficult to determine exactly how this vehicle would have been classified, for the purpose of applying applicable standards. I hereby request this formal inquiry.

The "Versa Sweeper" vehicle is considered to be a road/highway sweeper and/or power broom. At the time in question, the vehicle was being used in a construction zone, to sweep debris off the roadway.

I hereby submit the following inquiries:

1. For the model year, 1981, how would NHTSA had defined the Terrain King "Versa Sweeper"?

2. Under the applied NHTSA definition, for the 1981 Terrain King "Versa Sweeper", what regulations and/or standards would had applied to the manufacturing of the sweeper?

3. Did those applied regulations require the implementation of an occupant restraint system or rollover protection? If not, what is the respective date of application for implementation of those standards?

In addition to the above, I submit the following request(s) and inquiries in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act:

4. Request production of any and all correspondence and/or documentation in which the U. S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA, or an agent thereof possess regarding inquiries made by the designer and/or manufacturer, W. F. Larson Company, Amarillo, Te xas and Terrain King, regarding the manufacturing and production of the "Versa Sweeper" and all applicable standards?

A. What was the definition of use and/or application provided to the designer/manufacturer?

B. Based on the definition supplied to the designer/manufacturer, what were the Federal standards for which they were required to meet, as provided by the NHTSA?

C. At the time this product was manufactured, was this vehicle required to be equipped with an occupant restraint system and/or rollover protection?

5. Request production of any and all correspondence and/or documentation in which the U. S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA, or an agent thereof possess regarding inquiries made by a designer and/or manufacturer of a street sweeper, power broom, and /or street broom regarding the required and applicable standards?

For your review, I have enclosed copies of photographs of the "Versa Sweeper" in question. This vehicle is equipped with headlights. Ironically, however, this vehicle is not equipped with tail lights or a brake warning device.

I greatly appreciate your time and efforts towards responding to my inquiries. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me by calling (904) 435-7065. I look forward to receiving your response.

Enclosure VERSA SWEEPER BROCHURE (OMITTED)

ID: nht95-2.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 13, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Mayo D. Tubbs -- Visionary Lighting Systems

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: NONE AVAILABLE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Tubbs:

We have received your letter of March 23, 1995, asking for a waiver of 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) which will enable the introduction of a new lighting system that you have developed for large trailers. You envision that this system will eventually be installed on emergency vehicles and school buses. We understand that you wish to market this system as original equipment.

You have asked that we "provide adequate safeguards to prevent unauthorized dissemination of this information." As Taylor Vinson of this Office explained to you before you wrote, all the agency's letters of interpretation must be made available to the ge neral public, and these letters must include enough information to make the interpretation comprehensible. Mr. Vinson telephoned you on March 30, 1995, and informed you that we proposed, in this instance, to limit the description of the system to the nu mber, location, and quantity of lamps, to withhold the incoming letter with the exception of Attachment A, and to exclude your name and address from the copy made publicly available. You concurred with this treatment of your letter, except that you pref erred not to have your name and address withheld in the event a reader might be interested in getting in touch with you.

You believe that the current lighting and conspicuity requirements for large trailers are inadequate for safety when compared with your system. This system consists of 18 "strip lights on the side and rear" of large trailers which are "Aviation Green" i n color. The side and rear lighting schemes are depicted on Attachment A to your letter. As we interpret Attachment A, two of the strip lights are mounted in the upper right and left rear corners, while eight lights are on each side of the trailer (fou r right-angle lights in each upper and lower corner, and four lights deployed at one-third body-length intervals at the top and bottom).

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment is the Federal regulation that governs original lighting equipment on trailers. These requirements must be met upon the manufacture and sale of trailers. With res pect to the rear of a van trailer, your Attachment A depicts only strip lights in the upper right and left corners. This is not permissible under Standard No. 108. The Federal regulation requires the conspicuity treatment specified by S5.7 to be applie d in this area, as well as clearance lamps. With respect to the side of a van trailer, Standard No. 108 requires horizontal conspicuity treatment to be applied near the lower edge of the trailer as close to the front and rear as practicable, though it n eed not be continuous as long as it covers at least half the trailer length. Because of the gaps between the strip lights on the trailer side as depicted in Attachment A, it is possible that conspicuity treatment could be applied between the strips that would total half or more of the trailer length.

However, supplementary lighting equipment such as your system is not permissible under Standard No. 108 (paragraph S5.1.3) if it impairs the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by the standard. Standard No. 108 restricts the color of exteri or lights to red, amber, and white, the former two of which are associated with caution. Green is not used as an exterior lighting color because it is the recognized signal to proceed rather than to warn. We believe that use of the color green has the potential to create a measure of confusion rather than caution, thereby affecting the effectiveness of the mandatory side lighting equipment, i.e., amber front side markers, red rear side markers, and red and white conspicuity striping or red reflectors.

A vehicle manufacturer may petition for a temporary exemption from a Federal motor vehicle safety standard under the conditions specified in 49 CFR part 555, a copy of which is enclosed. Therefore, a trailer manufacturer interested in using your system could apply for a 2-year exemption on the basis that the exemption would make easier the development or field evaluation of a new motor vehicle safety feature providing a safety level at least equal to the safety level of the standard. The effect of an exemption is to allow the manufacture and sale of a nonconforming vehicle without violating 49 U.S.C. 30112(a). I am sorry to inform you that the exemption is not available to equipment manufacturers.

If you have data that sustains your belief that your system enhances safety, our Office of Research and Development would be interested in corresponding with you. The Associate Administrator of that Office is George Parker.

If there are other questions you have, Taylor Vinson will be happy to answer them for you.

Sincerely,

DRAWINGS OMITTED

ID: nht94-4.65

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 27, 1994

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Bruce Monnie -- Senior Designer, Advanced Design Associates

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 8/5/94 FROM BRUCE MONNIE TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNCIL (OCC 10253)

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking about Federal requirements for a product you have developed to improve the securement of child safety seats. You stated that the product is a one-piece steel bracket which "is installed on the seatbelt of the vehicle, to prevent slippage between the lap and shoulder portions of the seatbelt and to tighten up slack in the lap portion of the seatbelt." You indicated that the product would be installed on a temporary basis and that it would be sold in the "aftermarket" to persons owning child restraint systems. You request an interpretation of whether Standards No. 209, 213, or any other standard would apply to your device.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The agency does not approve, certify or endorse any vehicles or equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that would apply to your product. It appears from your description of the product that it would be a type of device that we call a "locking clip." A locking clip is a bracket into which a vehic le's lap and shoulder belt webbing is threaded. A locking clip tightens the webbing around a child safety seat and prevents the safety seat from moving easily. We have no safety standard that applies to locking clips. Standard 209 sets forth requiremen ts for new seat belt assemblies. However, since your product would not be installed as part of a new seat belt assembly, the standard would not apply. Standard 213 is our standard for child restraints. It applies to "any device except Type I or Type I I seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less" (S4 of Standard 213). Since your device would not itself restrain, seat or position a child, it would not be a child restr aint system. Therefore, Standard No. 213 would not apply to your product.

While no FMVSS applies to your product, your device is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. @@ 30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those and other manufacturer responsibilities. n1 In the event you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be re sponsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

n1 Please note that the "National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act" and the "Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act" to which the information sheet refers have recently been recodified in Title 49 of the United States Code. This means tha t the citations used in the information sheet are outdated; however, the substantive requirements described in the sheet have not changed.

In addition, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to 49 U.S.C. section 30122, which prohibits them from installing the device if the installation "makes inoperative" compliance with any safety standard. I t appears unlikely from the nature of your product that it would be placed in vehicles by commercial businesses instead of child restraint owners. However, if your product were to be installed by persons in those categories, they must ensure that its in stallation does not compromise the safety protection provided by a child restraint system or the vehicle belt system. The prohibition of section 30122 does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment.

Please note that we have a concern about the possible misuse of your device. Our safety standards require specific levels of performance for a vehicle's safety belt system. For example, Standard 208 has requirements that ensure that a vehicle's lap and shoulder belts are installed to distribute the crash forces over the skeletal structure of the occupant. The safety standards also have requirements for belts to automatically lock and retract. Your device attaches to the belt system, and will stay in place until the consumer removes it. Since it attaches to the belt system, it could affect the ability of the system to protect an adult occupant, or a child restrained without a child safety seat. We suggest that you provide clear instructions to the c onsumer to remove the device from the belt webbing when the belt system is used without a child restraint system.

In closing, I note for your information that NHTSA published a final rule in October 1993 requiring the safety belts in new motor vehicles to be capable of tightly securing child safety seats, without the necessity of the user's attaching any device, suc h as a locking clip, to the seat belt webbing, retractor, or any other part of the vehicle. The rule applies to vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1995. I have enclosed a copy of the rule.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-4.66

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 27, 1994

FROM: Lois Castillo -- President, Travel Tray, Inc.

TO: Joan Womack -- NHTSA; John Womack

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 1/9/95 letter from Philip Recht to Lois Castillo (A43; Std. 213)

TEXT: Dear Joan Womack:

My name is Lois Castillo. I represent a new company called Travel Tray, Inc. based in Utah. Our tray fits across children's carseats and is easily attached and removed. I have enclosed one of our brochures that describes our tray.

I need your help in obtaining any information you might have regarding safety regulations pertaining to a tray such as this.

We are in preparation to start manufacturing and have been advised to seek information from your department first. I have spoken with Craig Allred, Director of the State of Utah Division of Highway Safety and showed him my tray. He felt the tray was okay, but suggested that I should apply a disclaimer clause and warning that the tray should not be used as part of the safety apparatus. That it is only to be used as a convenience item - like a toy - for the child. My patent attorney also suggested thi s.

Please let me know what you think and any information you might have regarding this.

Thank you in advance for your time.

Enclosure

(Brochure omitted.)

ID: nht94-4.67

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 27, 1994

FROM: John E. Getz -- Director, Mobile Products Engineering, Ellis & Watts

TO: Taylor Vinson, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/2/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO JOHN E. GETZ (REDBOOK (2)); PART 571.7

TEXT: We are in the custom trailer manufacturing business. Most often we purchase new trailers and finish them, primarily inside, for specific applications such as medical trailers or trailers for specific electronic functions (see enclosed Brochure). In suc h cases our new trailer product is subject to all of the latest DOT regulations. However, in other cases we start with a used trailer and change its finishing and equipment for a new application. For example, we recently took an old (1985) vintage trai ler, stripped the inside, and refinished it for a major computer company to use as a mobile marketing facility. In this case the running gear did not change nor did the Vehicle Identification number. However, ownership did change which raised the questi on of "Newly Manufactured" as addressed in @ 571.7 "Applicability" (copy enclosed). Telephone discussions with Patrick Boyd and Ken Hardy in Vehicle Safety indicate preliminarily that this is not a newly manufactured trailer because the basic trailer st ructure did not change. However in some cases we may cut a hole in the side and install a door for a specific application.

What we are requesting is an interpretation as to whether we would fall in the category of a newly manufactured trailer if the running gear. VIN, and the basic trailer structure do not change, but the ownership does. In the example above we did add conspicuity treatment, not because it was thought to be legally required (although we did want to protect the company prior your interpretation), but mainly from a liability and safety standpoint in the event of an accident and subsequent litigation. If you have any questions regarding this request please call me at (513) 752-9000 ext. 208. Thanking you in advance. I am

Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

RICHARD P. BOWLING

PRESIDENT

FAX TRANSMITTAL COVER SHEET

Date: October 18, 1994

Number of pages including this sheet: 1

From: Don Vierimaa

To: John Getz, 1-513-943-3395 TITLE 49 - TRAILERS

@ 671.7 Applicability.

(a) General. Except as provided in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, each standard set forth in Subpart B of this part applies according to its terms to all motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment the manufacture of which is completed on or after the effective date of the standard.

(f) Combining new and used components in trailer manufacture. When new materials are used in the assembly of a trailer, the trailer will be considered newly manufactured for purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, the application of the requirement s of this chapter, and the Act, unless, at a minimum, the trailer running gear assembly (axle(s), wheels, braking and suspension) is not new, and was taken from an existing trailer--

(1) Whose identity is continued in the reassembled vehicle with respect to the Vehicle Identification Number; and

(2) That is owned or leased by the user of the reassembled vehicle.

ID: nht94-4.68

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 28, 1994

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Honorable Frank Lautenberg -- United States Senator

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 9/26/94 FROM FRANK LAUTENBERG TO SUSAN SLYE

TEXT: We are responding to your further correspondence on behalf of your constituent, Dr. Mark L. Bauman of Marlton, which was addressed to the Federal Highway Administration. On July 28, 1994, the Deputy Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety A dministration (NHTSA) wrote you about Dr. Bauman's courtesy light. I believe that letter fairly states NHTSA's views on the process the government generally follows for mandating items of safety equipment. This letter will explain what Dr. Bauman may n ow do if he wishes to sell his invention as an item of optional motor vehicle lighting equipment, without the necessity of Federal involvement.

Dr. Bauman's light would be mounted in the front of a vehicle so that its driver, stopped at an intersection, can advise pedestrians or other drivers to proceed with caution. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and As sociated Equipment governs the installation of lighting equipment on new motor vehicles. Since Standard No. 108 does not require a front courtesy light, the light is considered supplementary lighting equipment, one for which no standards have been estab lished. Supplementary lighting equipment is permissible provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that the standard does require, in this instance, the other lighting equipment on the vehicle's front, specifically park ing lamps, turn signal lamps, and headlamps (paragraph S5.1.3, Standard No. 108). The vehicle manufacturer is required to certify upon the vehicle's completion that it complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. With respect to certification of a vehicle on which the courtesy light has been installed, a manufacturer would be certifying under S5.1.3 that the light does not impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment. NHTSA will not question the certification un less it appears to be clearly erroneous. Thus, any tests that Dr. Bauman may conduct with the courtesy light should address the basic issue of impairment. A dealer in motor vehicles must not negatively affect the vehicle manufacturer's certification. Thus, if a dealership installs the courtesy light, it should ensure that there is no impairment within the meaning of S5.1.3 before offering the vehicle for sale and selling it. Our regulations make a distinction between modifications to new vehicles an d those that have been sold, but similar considerations apply. If a dealership installs the courtesy light on a used car, it must ensure that it does not "make inoperative" any of the required lighting equipment (49 U.S.C. 30122). We have interpreted t his, where possible, to be the equivalent of the "impairment" prohibition applicable to new vehicles. This prohibition applies to manufacturers, distributors and motor vehicle repair businesses as well.

However, the prohibition does not extend to the vehicle owner. If Dr. Bauman intends his courtesy light solely for the aftermarket and the device is such that it would ordinarily be installed by the vehicle owner, the legality of its use is determined b y the laws of the States in which it is operated. We are unable to advise Dr. Bauman on whether the laws of the individual States would permit use of his invention, and recommend that he write for an opinion to the American Association of Motor Vehicle A dministrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

I hope that this responds to Dr. Bauman's concerns.

ID: nht94-4.69

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 28, 1994

FROM: Donald T. Hoy -- Senior Marketing Manager, Clean Air Partners

TO: Philip R. Recht -- Office of Chief Counsel

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/27/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO DONALD T. HOY (REDBOOK 2; PART 303)

TEXT: The purpose of this letter is to obtain written confirmation on the issue of converting a school bus to run on a blended fuel of compressed natural gas (CNG) or liquefied natural gas (LNG) and diesel. During my conversation this morning with Mr. John Wo mack, I outlined our intention to convert school busses to run on a blended fuel of natural gas and diesel in Seattle, Washington. We fully intend to market this product in other states as well.

Basically, the Clean Air Partners, Inc. (CAP) CARB certified conversion system is designed to bolt on the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) diesel engine. The diesel fuel system remains intact and operates as designed during the duty cycle of the eng ine. Our conversion, during the dual fuel cycle, simply reduces the flow of diesel fuel to the engine and substitutes natural gas in its' place. Should your on board supply of natural gas be depleated, the system automatically reverts back to 100% diese l with no interruption in driveability.

With this brief description of our conversion system in mind, I would like to ask a few questions:

1. Are there any Federal Regulations preventing the conversation of a school bus from diesel to a "dual fuel" school bus?

2. With regard to vehicle certification, is there any significance as to when the conversion is installed on any school bus?

ID: nht94-4.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 19, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jerry Miller -- Director of Operations, Associated Leasing Handicapable Vans

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attachment Dated 5/31/94: Letter From Jerry Miller to Chief Console

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of May 31, 1994, requesting confirmation that "there are no rules or regulations on wheelchair tie downs for vehicles other than school buses."

You are correct that Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, which includes requirements for wheelchair securement devices, applies only to school buses. However, while none of the safety standar ds apply to wheelchair securement devices for vehicles other than wheelchairs, the manufacturer of the product is subject to federal requirements concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety (49 U.S.C. 30118-3 0121). The agency does not determine the existence of defects except in the context of a defect proceeding.

You should also be aware that the Department of Transportation has issued a final rule implementing the transportation provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act. This final rule includes requirements for wheelchair securement devices installed i n vehicles required to be accessible by this rule. A copy of the final rule is enclosed with this letter. If you have further questions on these regulations, please contact Mr. Irv Chor of the Federal Transit Administration. Mr. Chor's card is attached to the final rule.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions concerning NHTSA regulations, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Enclosure