ID: 22054.drn

Vincent P. Schulze, Chief
Commercial Bus Inspection and Investigation
State of New Jersey Department of Transportation
Division of Motor Vehicles
P.O. Box 160
Trenton, NJ 08666-0160






Dear Mr. Schulze:

This responds to your letter of May 18, 2000, to Mr. Chris Rotondo, of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) concerning test procedures for bus windows. Because you had questions about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release, which is administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), I have been asked to respond.

In your letter, you state that New Jersey State bus investigators are issuing summonses for safety violations during roadside bus safety inspections. The summonses are issued under the guidelines of a New Jersey statute, the "Bus Safety Compliance Act." One serious violation for which bus operators may be cited is "inoperable emergency exit windows." In your letter, you write:

However, it appears that the lawyers may have found a loophole to have most of these summonses thrown out of court (not guilty) due to a technicality in the Federal regulations that govern the operation of emergency exits. The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 217, under Test Conditions, part S6.2 states: "The inside of the vehicle and the outside environment are kept at any temperature from 70 degrees to 85 degrees immediately preceding the tests, and during the tests."

Apparently, a bus company attorney has successfully argued in a New Jersey state court that the New Jersey Department of Transportation did not meet the test conditions specified in Standard No. 217 because it inspected the bus when the outside temperature was below 70 degrees. You are writing for clarification of S6 "Test conditions" in Standard No. 217.

Some background information about NHTSA's statutory authority may be helpful. NHTSA is authorized to issue and enforce FMVSSs applicable to new motor vehicles. Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) requires any person selling a new motor vehicle to sell a vehicle that meets all applicable standards. Each manufacturer of a new bus must assure that the bus meets all applicable FMVSSs, including Standard No. 217. Section 30112 does not apply to the sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction in interstate commerce of a motor vehicle "after the first purchase of the vehicle ... in good faith other than for resale." 49 U.S.C. 30112(b). Nor does it govern operational requirements for vehicles, which are generally established by the States and, for certain trucks, buses, and commercial vehicles, by the FMCSA.

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30111(a), all FMVSSs must "be stated in objective terms." For this reason, NHTSA includes test procedures in each of its FMVSSs so that manufacturers will be aware of the manner in which NHTSA will conduct its compliance tests. The provision of S6.2 quoted in your letter simply specifies the range of temperatures at which our compliance tests will be conducted, to ensure that the tests are conducted as uniformly and objectively as possible. The specification of test temperatures does not mean that emergency exits are only required to open when the ambient temperature is between 70 and 85 degrees.

We agree with you that the emergency exits should be operable under all the driving conditions to which a bus could be subjected. However, as stated above, this is a matter governed by State law, not by the NHTSA standard. Unless New Jersey has specifically incorporated Standard No. 217 in its entirety, including its test procedures, into its operational requirements, we see no reason why law enforcement officials in New Jersey would only be able to issue citations for inoperable emergency exit windows if they showed that the windows did not function properly within the temperature range specified in the NHTSA standard.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

cc:	Peter Chandler, Transportation Specialist FMCSA Office of Bus and Truck Standards and Operations 400 Seventh Street, SW Room 3419 Washington, DC 20590

ref:217
d.9/29/00

ID: nht74-1.18

DATE: 05/20/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James B. Gregory; NHTSA

TO: The Japan Automobile Tire Manufacturers' Association, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 22, 1974, petition to permit the use of the DOT symbol on tires to which no standard applies.

The provisions appearing in the April 3, 1974, Federal Register (39 FR 12104) are amendments to the standard, and your submission is in effect a petition for reconsideration of these changes.

Our reasons for prohibiting the use of the DOT symbol on tires to which no motor vehicle safety standard is applicable are listed in Notice 7. We have found the expense of covering the label to be justified, to avoid confusion in the symbol's meaning and the concept of compliance. We have determined that means are available to securely cover the DOT symbol, or in the alternative, to remove it after the molding process.

For these reasons, your petition is denied.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

Date: April 22, 1974

Docket Section -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: Petition on Label Covering the DOT Symbol of @ 574.5;

(Docket No. 71-18 Notice 7)

Gentlemen,

The Japan Automobile Tire Manufacturers' Association, on behalf of six tire manufacturers in Japan, hereby submits petition on the subject proposed Standard published in the Federal Register of April 3, 1974.

It is described in the preamble of subject Docket to the effect;

The DOT symbol shall not appear on tires to which no Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard is applicable, unless, in the case of tire for which a standard has been issued but which is not yet effective, the symbol is covered by a label that is not easily removable and that states "No Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Applies to This Tire".

As this provision imposes unnecessary burdens on the tire manufacturers and would give very little benefit to the consumer, we would like to request that the NHTSA take following step for the reasons stated below: 1. DOT symbol may be molded into or onto the tires which conform to the final standard of FMVSS #119 even if the tires are manufactured prior to the effective date.

2. And, the tire manufacturers and brand name owners may sell tires without covering the DOT symbol by the label for three months prior to the effective date, in the case of tires for which a standard has been issued but which is not yet effective.

Reasons:

1. We believe that even if we covered the DOT symbol with the label, it could not contribute the safety of the consumer. In addition, there are the following demerits:

1.1 To require the tires which conform to the requirements of FMVSS #119 to have the DOT symbol covered by a label is not only burdensome to the tire manufacturers but also the consumers will ultimately bear the expense of providing labels.

1.2 From our past experience, 5 to 10% of the labels attached to the tire will come off during handling and shipping. Should it fall between the tire and the tube it may cause a flat tire which would involve a possible safety hazard and expose tire manufacturers to a product liability suit.

1.3 In the case of the tire sold as original equipment on a new motor vehicle, each motor vehicle is tested by running check before sending it out, we are afraid that some of the labels may come off before the consumer receives the car.

2. We think it is highly unlikely that any tire manufacturer would produce low quality tires and sell them in this short time before effective date. Some small degree of trust and practicality must exist.

3. We understand the lead time is defined as the period for molding the DOT symbol mark only on tires which conform to the final standard.

We would greatly appreciate your consideration on the above petition.

Very truly yours,

THE JAPAN AUTOMOBILE TIRE MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION, INC.; Keigo Ohgiya, Executive Director

ID: nht68-2.18

DATE: 06/20/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph R. O'Gorman; NHTSA

TO: Ultra Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of February 27, 1968, concerning certification of the Ultra Van Motorhome as a multipurpose vehicle. An examination of the information submitted indicate that the Ultra Van Motorhome would properly be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle within the definition contained in Section 255.3 (b) CFR, Initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 requires every manufacturer of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment to furnish certification of compliance with applicable standards. Details of certification were published as a Federal Register, Vol. 32. No. 215 on November 4, 1967. Your attention is invited to the enclosed copies of these documents and the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

We trust we have been of assistance to you.

ID: 23098a.drn

The Honorable Todd R. Platts
Member, U.S. House of Representatives
2209 East Market Street
York, PA 17402





Dear Congressman Platts:

Thank you for your letter of April 25, 2001, to the U.S. Department of Transportation's (DOT) Office of Congressional Affairs on behalf of your constituent,

Mr. Dean Thoman, of Glen Rock, PA. Mr. Thoman's church operates a small private school that recently purchased a used 15-passenger van to transport school children for school-related activities. After the purchase, Mr. Thomas found information leading him to believe "it was against federal and State law to use this van to transport school age children for any school activity. " Mr. Thoman then attempted to return the van to the dealer but was refused. Mr. Thoman sought your office's assistance in returning the van and getting a refund. You have asked DOT to review Mr. Thoman's situation. Because you seek information about laws administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), I have been asked to respond to you.

Some background information may be helpful. NHTSA is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles. Our statute at 49 U.S.C. '30112(a) 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 at 49 U.S.C. '30125 defines a "school bus" 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. ⁽¹⁾ This definition was enacted in 1974, as part of a comprehensive effort by Congress to increase school bus safety. By regulation, the capacity threshold for school buses corresponds to that of buses -- vehicles designed for carrying more than ten (10) persons.

The great majority of vehicles used to transport students fall within the definition of "school bus." More specifically, any new "bus" sold to a school district, or to a private school, is considered to be a "school bus" when sold for pupil transportation, and as such must comply with the school bus safety standards. A dealer or distributor who sells a new bus to a school district or private school that does not meet school bus standards is subject to penalties under the statute.

Under Federal law, a school district or private school can be sold a used bus (i.e., a 15-passenger van), even though the vehicle could not be sold as a bus when new. This is because NHTSA's requirement to sell vehicles that meet applicable safety standards does not apply to the sale of a motor vehicle "after the first purchase of the vehicle ... in good faith other than for resale," i.e., to sales of used vehicles. Nonetheless, because school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country, we strongly recommend that all buses that are used to transport school children be certified as meeting NHTSA's school bus safety standards.

Although we cannot assist Mr. Thoman in his efforts to return the 15-passenger van to the dealer for a refund, Mr. Thoman may wish to show this letter and enclosures to the dealer. This will put the dealer on notice that a dealer selling a 15-passenger van for school transportation could be subject to liability in the event of a crash.

Our belief that vehicles providing the safety of school buses should be used whenever transporting children in buses is shared by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). At a June 8, 1999, public meeting, the NTSB issued the enclosed abstract of a special investigative report on nonconforming buses. The NTSB issued the report after investigating four crashes in 1998 and 1999 in which 9 people were killed and 36 injured when riding in "nonconforming buses." NTSB defines "nonconforming bus" as a "bus that does not meet the FMVSSs specific to school buses." Most of the victims, including eight of the fatalities, were children.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact me at (202) 366-9511.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:VSA#571.3
d.6/6/01





---

1. ¹ NHTSA has consistently interpreted "related events" to include school-sponsored field trips and athletic events.

ID: nht92-2.8

DATE: 11/24/92

FROM: SHAFI J. KEISLER -- PRESIDENT, ONE MORE RUN, INC.

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

TITLE: RE: REPLACEMENT TAIL LIGHT LENS

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-16-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO SHAFI J. KEISLER (STD. 108)

TEXT: My company is pursuing the manufacture of a licensed replacement tail light lens for the 1966-7 Dodge Charger. Per my conversation with Mr. Vinson today, I am formally requesting all safety standards information pertinent to the manufacture of this replacement lens. Please note that we are manufacturing the lens only (with reflex reflector) and not the entire lamp assembly. We will use only current DOT and SAE approved material to build this item. It is our goal to build this lens to meet and exceed all safety standards.

Please send your formal reply to the address at the top of this letter. Thank you in advance for your help.

ID: nht80-4.21

DATE: 11/28/80

FROM: P. SOARDO -- INSTITUTO ELETTROTECNICO NAZIONALE

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: REAPPROVAL OF LIGHTING DEVICES - FEDERAL STANDARD 108

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/05/81 EST FROM FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA TO P. SOARDO; NOA-30; REDBOOK A22, STANDARD 108

TEXT: With reference of the lighting devices to be installed on cars described in the Std. 108, we should like to know when an approval issued by a State according to the said Standard expires. The certificates of approval can be issued for the installation of the device on a specific car or without any reference to present or future installations: is there any difference between these two certificates, as far as their validity is concerned?

We should also like to know which is the procedure foreseen by Std. 108 when a car is no longer manufactured, but of course lighting devices are available as spare parts.

Sincerely Yours,

ID: nht78-4.7

DATE: 05/31/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Arcola Bus Sales Co.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This confirms your conversation of May 9, 1978, with Roger Tilton of my staff concerning the applicability of the school bus safety standards to smaller van-type vehicles. As Mr. Tilton indicated, a vehicle that transports 9 passengers and a driver is not considered a school bus and need not comply with the school bus safety standards. A vehicle that transports 10 passengers and a driver is a school bus and must comply with all of the applicable school bus safety standards.

ID: 07-003234as-2

ID: 1983-2.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/27/83

FROM: PEKKA SUURONEN -- RACEMARK INTERNATIONAL INC

TO: CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/17/83 FROM FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA TO PEKKA SUURONEN, REDBOOK A25, STANDARD 108, NOA 30

TEXT: Gentlemen:

On behalf of our principal "Hella" (Germany), I am writing to you to find out about headlamp legality.

(1) Is a sealed headlamp with replaceable European H4 bulb considered legal (like Cibie BOBI), provided it meets with all the applicable SAE standards?

(2) As above, but with the new "Ford" bulb (6 standard sizes)?

I am looking forward to your reply.

Yours truly,

ID: nht80-3.48

DATE: 09/12/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Raphael Musto; House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of August 22, 1980 concerning an inquiry regarding regulations for off-road vehicles, which was referred to us by Kenneth S. Birnbaum, Director, Office of Congressional Affairs, Department of Transportation. Your constituent, Mr. Steve Schwika, asked about regulations for off-road vehicles (terrane vehicles - 6 wheel).

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues both fuel economy standards and Federal motor vehicle safety standards. As explained below, six-wheel terrane vehicles are not subject to fuel economy standards. However, without more detailed information concerning the vehicles, we cannot give a definitive answer as to whether Federal motor vehicle safety standards would be applicable. Nonetheless, we can provide guidelines for use in determining the status of these vehicles.

Pursuant to Title V of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. @ 2001), this agency has promulgated regulations which establish the categories of motor vehicles that are subject to fuel economy standards. The regulations (49 CFR Part 523) state that fuel economy standards are applicable only to automobiles, light trucks, and automobiles capable of off-highway travel. Under the definitions set forth at 15 U.S.C. @ 2001 and in the regulations, fuel economy standards are only issued for four-wheeled vehicles. A six-wheel terrane vehicle would not, therefore, be subject to fuel economy standards.

Our safety standards apply to a vehicle and its manufacturer only if the vehicle qualifies as a "motor vehicle" under the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. Section 102(3) of the Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1391(3)) defines "motor vehicle" as: any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

Thus, a motor vehicle is a vehicle which the manufacturer has reason to expect will use public highways at least part of the time. We are enclosing an information sheet which gives further guidelines on which vehicles are subject to Federal motor vehicle safety standards, as well as an information sheet explaining where copies of the regulations may be obtained.

SINCERELY,

Congress of the United States House of Representatives

August 22, 1980

Kenneth Birnbaum, Acting Director of Congressional Affairs Department of Transportation Dear Mr. Birnbaum:

Mr. Steve Schwika of Box 167, Penn Lake, White Haven, Pennsylvania 18661, has asked me to help him obtain formation on the regulations for off-road vehicles (terrane vehicles - 6 wheel).

Please be good enough to favor me with your comments.

RAPHAEL MUSTO, Member of Congress