ID: 2772 cmc cloth label

ID: Copy of 2772 cmc cloth label

ID: nht68-1.34

DATE: 06/01/68 EST

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lester D. Johnson; NHTSA

TO: Elford A. Cederberg; House of Representatives

COPYEE: DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 28, 1968, concerning the application of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards to a Morgan 4/4 convertible automobile imported by Mr. Edvis Fine of Mount Pleasant, Michigan.

Based on the information contained in your letter, it appears that the vehicle in question has not been manufactured in conformity with the safety standards prescribed by the Department of Transportation. Therefore, the vehicle is not permitted entry into the United States unless entry is made under bond and Highway Safety Form 7 (copy enclosed) is completed by the importer. This requirement is provided for in section 12.80(b), Customs Regulations, a copy of which is also enclosed for your convenience.

If your constituent wants to take delivery of the vehicle so that it can be brought into conformity, the foregoing requirements must first be complied with. To avoid certain storage charges, it will be to Mr. Fine's advantage to make entry for consumption or export the vehicle as soon as possible. Normally, storage charges begin to necrue on the sixth day, exclusive of Sundays and holidays, after date of arrival of the importing carrier in the port.

The Bureau of Customs cannot advise your constituent what modifications or additions are necessary to bring the vehicle into conformity. This information can be obtained from the Department of Transportation and a copy of your letter has been forwarded to that office for direct reply.

Sincerely yours,

Congress of the United States

House of Representatives

May 28, 1968

Lester D. Johnson Commissioner Bureau of Customs

Dear Mr. Johnson:

On January 12, 1968, my constituent, Mr. Lewis Fine of Mount Pleasant, Michigan, placed an order with Metro Motors of Windsor, Ontario, for a British-made Morgan 4/4 convertible automobile. The car was shipped from England on or about April 19, 1968, and the order, a copy of which is enclosed, was plainly marked "for export to the USA." Mr. Fine is having difficulty getting his car into the United States, having been told that he would have to sign your Form No. NS7 stating that he would bring the car up to Government standards within ninety days and the Canadian dealer would have to post bond guaranteeing compliance. It is my understanding that the car is already equipped with the following equipment:

1. 1600 CC Ford Cortina Engine

2. Electric windshield washers and wipers

3. Front and rear bumpers

4. 3 Point seat belts

5. Hydraulic and mechanical brakes

6. 72 spoke wire wheels and hubs (not the knock on type)

7. Two rear view fonder mirrors

8. Four two-way flasher and back-up lights

I shall appreciate it if you will review this file and advise me what further stops are necessary in order for Mr. Fine to get this car into the United States.

Sincerely yours,

Elford A. Cederberg

Enclosure

ID: nht73-1.6

DATE: 09/11/73

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

TO: Volkswagen of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 8, 1973, to Mr. Schneider asking for confirmation of your interpretation of two sections of Standard No. 105a.

You ask first whether S5.3.1 requires that the activation of an indicator lamp upon application of 50 pounds of force be instantaneous, or whether a minimal time lag is permissible. You indicate that in a "panic stop" there is a time lag of approximately 100 milliseconds between application of 50 pounds of force and lamp activities in the VW system. Since, as you state, it is "humanly impossible" to discern such a minimal time lag, we consider that the VW system complies with S5.3.1, and that the lamp is activated upon application of 50 pounds of force.

You are also correct in your interpretation of S5.2.1 that the 5-minute requirement applies only to vehicles that do not exceed the limit of traction on a 30 percent grade.

Sincerely,

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

August 8, 1973

Lawrence R. Schneider -- Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Schneider:

This letter is a request for interpretation of certain language in S5.3.1 and S5.2.1 of FMVSS 105a, Hydraulic Brake Systems.

In regard to this matter a meeting was held on August 6, 1973 with personnel of the NHTSA and Volkswagen representatives. In attendance were Messrs. Taylor Vincent, E. Driver, C. Baker and V. Bloom of the NHTSA, and Messrs. G. Riechel, J. Kennebeck and K.H. Ziwica of Volkswagen of America.

1. S5.3.1 provides that "an indicator lamp shall be activated when the ignition (start) switch is in the "on" (run) position and whenever any of the following conditions occur: (a) a pressure failure in any part of the service brake system, other than a structural failure of a housing that is common to two or more subsystems, before or upon application of either (1) . . . or (2) 50 pounds of control force upon a fully manual service brake".

In the above mentioned meeting with the NHTSA, VW representatives described the conditions under which the brake failure system used by Volkswagen actuates if a failure in one of the subsystems has occurred. By using a normal or slow force application rate as shown in example "d" of attachment I, the failure indicator lamp will be activated before 50 pounds of control force are reached. By using a very fast application rate as shown in example "b" of attachment I, the indicator lamp will be activated with a certain time lag from the point where 50 pounds are reached. This characteristic is further illustrated in attachment II containing test data of a very slow control force application, and in attachment III for a panic brake force application.

In the discussion with the NHTSA representatives there was agreement that in regard to a fast control force application the wording in S5.3.1(a) "upon application of 50 pounds" does not mean that the failure indicator light must be activated instantaneously if a 50 pound control force is reached, but rather a certain time lag would be permissible before the warning light illuminates. For the panic brake situation, a time lag of approximately 100 ms, after 50 pounds control force are reached, was considered reasonable.

Based on the above mentioned discussion, we would appreciate it if you would provide us with written confirmation indicating that with a fast control force application the wording "upon application of 50 pounds" in S5.3.1(a) does not prohibit a reasonable time lag before the failure indicator lamp is activated. We want to emphasize that this interpretation would not detract from the safety intent of the requirement for failure indicators, as it is humanly impossible to discern such a minimal time lag.

2. According to S5.2.1, a parking brake system of a passenger car "shall be capable of holding the vehicle stationary (to the limit of traction of the braked wheels) for five minutes".

It is our understanding from the aforementioned discussion with the NHTSA personnel that the five minute requirement only applies to a vehicle which is able to be kept stationary by its parking brake at 30% inclination. A vehicle which slides down the 30% inclination with wheels locked by the parking brake is not required to meet the five minute requirement.

We also would appreciate receiving your written confirmation to this interpretation of S5.2.1 of FMVSS 105a.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,

J.W. Kennebeck --

Manager,

Safety and Development

(Graphics omitted)

Attachment B

Broke Pedal applied very fast failure induced in rear circuit

ID: 7023

Mr. James G. White
Head, Crash Avoidance Standards (ASFBE)
Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation
Transport Canada

FAX: 613-998-1965

Dear Mr. White:

This responds to your FAX of February 18, 1992, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency, who has asked this office to respond to your question 1.a.

That question is: "Is Koito correct in stating that FMVSS 108 does not require the 'O' point on IHAD (sic) indicators to be marked by the numeral '0'"? In the letter from Koito that you furnished, Koito had remarked that the requirement in S7.7.5.2(a)(1) and (2) of Standard No. 108 "to have a zero mark" did "not necessarily mean a mark of figure 'O', but may be just a reference mark."

Koito is incorrect. S7.7.5.2 On-vehicle aiming specifies requirements for Vehicle Headlamp Aiming Devices (VHADs). VHADs provide for headlamp aim inspection in both the vertical and horizontal axes. S7.7.5.2(a)(2) Horizontal aim states that "An 'O' mark shall be used to indicate alignment of the headlamps relative to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle." This clearly establishes the requirement for use of the figure "0" as the mark, and not use of a reference mark. You will note that S7.7.5.2(b) references setting the VHAD "at 'O' vertical and 'O' horizontal." This means at the "O" mark.

Both S7.7.5.2(a)(1) Vertical aim and (a)(2) reference the necessity to provide "an equal number of graduations from the 'O' position representing angular changes in the axis." These graduations are not required to be marked. The presence of the "O" mark will assist the person aiming the headlamp to ensure that the VHAD is set at the junction of the horizontal and vertical axes, rather than at one of adjacent, unmarked graduations.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:109 d:3/5/92

ID: nht92-8.32

DATE: March 5, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: James G. White -- Head, Crash Avoidance Standards (ASFBE), Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation, Transport Canada

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/29/92 from J. Yoshimoto to James G. White

TEXT:

This responds to your FAX of February 18, 1992, to Richard van Iderstine of this agency, who has asked this office to respond to your question 1.a.

That question is: "Is Koito correct in stating that FMVSS 108 does not require the 'O' point on IHAD (sic) indicators to be marked by the numeral 'O"'? In the letter from Koito that you furnished, Koito had remarked that the requirement in S7.7.5.2(a) (1) and (2) of Standard No. 108 "to have a zero mark" did "not necessarily mean a mark of figure 'O', but may be just a reference mark."

Koito is incorrect. S7.7.5.2 On-vehicle aiming specifies requirements for Vehicle Headlamp Aiming Devices (VHADs). VHADs provide for headlamp aim inspection in both the vertical and horizontal axes. S7.7.5.2(a)(2) Horizontal aim states that "An 'O' mark shall be used to indicate alignment of the headlamps relative to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle." This clearly establishes the requirement for use of the figure "O" as the mark, and not use of a reference mark. You will note that S7.7.5.2(b) references setting the VHAD "at 'O' vertical and 'O' horizontal." This means at the "O" mark.

Both S7.7.5.2(a)(1) Vertical aim and (a)(2) reference the necessity to provide "an equal number of graduations from the 'O' position representing angular changes in the axis." These graduations are not required to be marked. The presence of the "O" mark will assist the person aiming the headlamp to ensure that the VHAD is set at the junction of the horizontal and vertical axes, rather than at one of adjacent, unmarked graduations.

ID: 1982-2.2

DATE: 04/07/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: D. L. Robertson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 9, 1977, regarding a letter from your constituent, Mr. Larry Gabor, Chairman of the Huntington Consumer Protection Board, concerning the safety of vehicle seats which do not lock in fore-and-aft adjustment position.

As we explained to Mr. Gabor in our letter of August 18, 1977 (copy enclosed), we have a Federal motor vehicle safety standard which is designed to prevent this situation. The standard regulates vehicles at initial sale, but does not cover inadvertent failure or premature wear-out situations. We do have authority to investigate such situations, however, to determine if grounds exist for conduct of a safety related defect "recall campaign." We are forwarding a copy of Mr. Gabor's letter to our Office of Defects Investigation to alert them of this situation. Our previous letter urged Mr. Gabor to furnish them the pertinent details on this matter. Only then can they investigate properly.

SINCERELY,

TOWN OF HUNTINGTON LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK

(Illegible Word) PROTECTION BOARD

July 25, 1977

Congressman Jerome Ambro

This Office is concerned about a particular aspect of automobile safety; the construction of the adjustable driver seat is what concerns us.

Based on an incident that occurred in our Town recently, it would appear that it is possible for a driver seat not to look into position but to actually slide back and forth depending on the motion of the driver, or the car, or both.

The incident that brought this to our attention was a driver, short in stature, actually unable to reach the brakes or the steering wheel of her car because the seat slid backward during acceleration. The driver of the car in this case was seriously injured.

We feel that this may be a significant hazzard and that some fail-safe system ought to be developed.

Please advise us of your thinking and experience on this subject.

Larry Gabor Chairman

ID: nht91-6.5

DATE: September 19, 1991

FROM: Earl H. Kester -- President, Seatco

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-23-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Earl H. Kester (A38; Std. 208; VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

Seatco is a manufacturer of custom seating for the van, pickup and Surburban market both to bailment pool converters and to aftermarket accounts. My question concerning FVMSS 208 is directed to the aftermarket accounts. These are retail establishments that sell and install accessories on titled vehicles. Our opinion is that 208 compliance includes installing seats in a 1992 vehicle that falls under the 208 envelope. Our competition has taken the position that this is not true. There is a considerable difference in pricing based on a seat that will meet 208 standards and one that will not.

We need a ruling from NHSTA as to the proper position to take on compliance in our industry. The part of the law that we interpreted as compliance is under the section of " not rendering a safety item inoperable". Please respond as soon as possible as we are in grave need of a ruling.

ID: nht76-4.38

DATE: 02/25/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: State of Connecticut

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letters of June 24, 1975, and May 30, 1975, regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 217 and 205. Please excuse our delay in answering your questions.

In your letter of June 24, 1975, you asked whether Standard No. 217 applies to school buses, and if so, whether Connecticut's regulations concerning emergency exits for school buses are in conflict with the Federal standard. By notice published in the Federal Register on January 27, 1976 (41 FR 3871) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, 49 CFR 571.217, was amended to specify requirements for emergency doors for school buses, pursuant to the provisions of Section 202 of the Motor Vehicle and Safety Amendments of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-492, 88 Stat. 1484, 15 U.S.C. 1392).

Since Standard No. 217, as amended, applies to school buses, effective October 26, 1976, any State regulations which differ are voided by @ 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)). The Connecticut regulations are, therefore, preempted by Standard No. 217, since @ 103(d) requires the State regulations to be "identical" to the Federal standard.

It should be noted, however, that while the State of Connecticut may not issue a regulation which differs from similarly applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard requirements, Connecticut (or any of its political subdivisions) may in its own contracts for school bus purchases require more stringent specifications, as long as the Federal minimum requirements are met.

In your letter of May 30, 1975, you asked whether Lucite AR and other similar rigid plastics are allowed for use as side windows of buses under Standard No. 205, even though S5.1.2.1 does not list the use for "Item 12" rigid plastics.

"Item 12" is a classification created by the NHTSA for rigid plastics which comply with all the tests required of "Item 5" rigid plastics as defined in ANS Z26, with the exception of the test for resistance to undiluted denatured alcohol. Paragraph S5.1.2.1, Item 12 - Rigid plastics, provides that "Item 5" safety plastic materials may be used in motor vehicles only in the locations specified, at levels not requisite for driving visibility. These locations include "Standee windows in buses" and "readily removable windows". However, there is no provision in S5.1.2.1 which allows the use of "Item 12" plastic materials for fixed, side windows in buses.

Standard No. 205 defines readily removable windows in buses having a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds to include pushout windows and windows mounted in emergency exits that can be manually pushed out of their location in the vehicle without the use of tools, whether or not one side remains hinged to the vehicle. Rigid plastics can only be used for side windows in buses if the side window is a readily removable window as defined by S5.1.1.4 or a standee window.

I hope this letter clarifies your questions concerning Standard Nos. 217 and 205. Please contact us if we can be of any further assistance.

YOURS TRULY,

STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES

June 24, 1975

Richard Dyson Assistant Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

This is in regard to your recent reply to Mr. W. G. Milby, Staff Engineer from the Blue Bird Body Company in Fort Valley, Georgia concerning Connecticut regulations for emergency exits on school buses.

I have no question with the response that State regulations must be identical to Federal standard or are considered void. I can understand the reasoning behind this decision and agree with it completely. The interpretation I would have is; Does Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #217 apply to school buses, and if it does; are Connecticut regulations concerning emergency doors and emergency windows in conflict with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #217?

I am attaching for your information copies of those sections of Connecticut regulations concerning emergency exits from the "MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR TYPE I SCHOOL BUS CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPMENT and all correspondence pertaining to this subject.

Thank you for your cooperation and assistance in this regard.

John L. O'Connell Pupil Transportation Administrator

ATTACHMENTS

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

May 19, 1975

Richard Dyson Assistant Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation NHTSA

The State of Connecticut recently adopted new school bus specifications which will become effective on school buses manufactured after January 1, 1976. In two areas these specifications are more restrictive than FMVSS 217 Bus Window Retention and Release.

In section 14-275B-16 (d) and 14-275B-17 (a), (see attached copies), the Connecticut specifications call for emergency exit release forces of between 5 and 15 pounds and 5 and 20 pounds respectively. Since these forces are different than those required by FMVSS 217, this imposes an additional constraint on school bus manufacturers for that state. Also, we are concerned that latch forces as low as 5 pounds could result in inadvertent opening of emergency exits.

We are in receipt of a copy of a letter which you sent to Mr. Donald L. Gibson, dated November 29, 1974, with file reference N40-30 (KK). In that letter you state:

"The federal requirements must be regarded as conclusive with regard to parking brake performance and emergency braking capability in order to maintain the uniformity necessary in a federal regulatory scheme. If states were permitted to impose additional requirements in an area regulated by a federal safety standard, manufacturers would be confronted with an impossible task of compliance. This reasoning formed the basis of the recent decision rendered in a case brought by the Motorcycle Industry Council, Inc., against the State of California in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California concerning the preemption of a California State requirement that motorcycle lamps be wired to operate when the engine is running. The court held that the California requirement is preempted by the Federal Motor Vehicle Standard 108 since the NHTSA intended to cover all aspects of performance directly involving motorcycle headlamps."

It appears to us that this current conflict between the new Connecticut regulations and FMVSS 217 is similar to the matter which you addressed in your letter quoted above.

In the light of such conflicting specifications, what is our responsibility as a school bus manufacturer.

W. G. Milby Staff Manager

cc: JOHN O'CONNELL; DAVE PHELPS

MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR TYPE I SCHOOL BUS CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPMENT PAGES 9 AND 10 the release mechanism should be turned to open the emergency door shall be painted on the outside of the emergency door in black on the national school bus yellow background. The emergency door shall have a horizontal opening of at least 30 inches and a vertical opening of at least 48 inches measured from the floor level. No steps shall lead to the emergency door. The emergency door or exit shall be devised so as to be opened from the inside and the outside.

(b) The passage to the emergency door shall be kept clear of obstructions. For rear doors the horizontal clearance of 30 inches shall be maintained for a distance of at least twelve inches inside the bus. When the emergency door is in the left side, a minimum horizontal clearance of 30 inches and a vertical clearance of 48 inches shall be maintained between it and the center aisle.

(c) The upper and lower portion of the central rear emergency door shall be equipped with approved safety glass, the exposed area of which shall be not less than four hundred (400) square inches in the upper portion and not less than three hundred (300) square inches in the lower portion. The left side emergency door shall be equipped with safety glass in the upper portion and the lower portion shall be of at least the same gauge metal as the body outer panels. The emergency door shall be hinged on the right side if it is in the rear end of the bus and on the front side if it is in the left side and shall open only outward. Control from the driver's seat shall not be permitted.

(d) The emergency door shall be equipped with a slide-bar, cam-operated latch which shall be a minimum stroke of one inch. The latch shall be equipped with a suitable electric plunger-type switch connected with a distinctive audible signal automatically operated and located in the driver's compartment which shall clearly indicate the unlatching of this door and no cutoff switch shall be installed in the circuit. The switch shall be enclosed in a metal case, and wires leading from the switch shall be concealed in the body. The switch shall be so installed that the plunger contacts the farthest edge of the slide bar in such a manner that any movement of the slide bar will immediately close the circuit and activate the signal. The door latch shall be equipped with an interial handle which shall be capable of quick release upon application of a force between 5 and 15 pounds but shall be protected against accidental release. It shall lift up to release the latch. The outside handle shall be installed in a vertical position when latched so as to minimize hitching and shall be a non-detachable device.

(e) An audio alarm shall indicate to the driver when any door is in the locked position while the ignition switch is in the "on" position.

Sec. 14-275b-17. Emergency Windows. (a) A rear emergency window at least 16 inches height and as wide as practicable shall be provided in any where the emergency door is not in the rear. The rear window shall be designed so as to be opened from either the inside the outside. It shall be hinged at the top and be equipped a linkage or mechanism that will automatically hold the (Illegible Word) window against the force of gravity at a hinge opening angle 60 + 5 degrees measured from the closed window position. Such linkage or mechanism shall not prevent the window from (Illegible Word) a full 90 degrees due to gravitational forces should the bus be inverted. A positive latch on the inside shall provide (Illegible Word) quick release upon application of a force between 5 and 20 pounds but offer protection against accidental release. The outside handle shall be non-detachable and designed to minimize hitching.

(b) Labeling shall indicate in 1/2 inch letters on the inside the window operates and in letters at least two inches in height the words "Emergency Exit" above on the inside and directly below on the outside. clearly indicate to the driver the unlatching of the rear emergency window or the opening of any push-out emergency windows and no cutoff switch shall be installed in the (Illegible Word)

(d) If there is a space between the top of the rear divan seat the inside lower edge of the rear emergency window, such space shall be covered by a material of sufficient strength to sustain 600 pounds weight.

Sec. 14-275b-18. Exhaust System and Muffler. The exhaust system shall include the exhaust manifold and gaskets, piping leading from the flange of the exhaust manifold to and including the muffler(s). The system shall not extend into the body and shall be attached to the chassis. The tail pipe(s) shall be non-flexible sixteen gauge steel or equivalent and shall extend beyond the rear end of the chassis frame but not beyond the rear limit of the bumper. The complete exhaust system shall be tight and free from leaks and shall be properly insulated from the electrical wiring or any combustible part of the bus. It shall not pass within twelve inches of the fuel tank or its connections except that the exhaust system may come within four inches of the tank or its connections if a suitable heat baffle is installed between the exhaust system and such tank or connections. The size of the in the exhaust system shall not be reduced below that at the engine manifold.

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

June 10, 1975

John O'Connell Pupil Transportation Adm. Department of Motor Vehicles

On May 19, 1975, I wrote Mr. Richard Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel for NHTSA with regard to the emergency exit requirements in the new Connecticut School Bus Specifications VS Federal Standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release per our earlier telephone conversation.

Attached please find a copy of the reply to that letter from Mr. James C. Schultz, Chief Counsel for NHTSA. I think it would be good for us to discuss this reply and so after you have had a few days to review this letter I will plan to call you.

Look forward to talking to you shortly.

W. G. Milby Staff Engineer

c: DAVE PHELPS

ID: 86-6.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/15/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Slade Gorton

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

The Honorable Slade Gorton United States Senate Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Gorton:

Thank you for your November 3, 1986, letter on behalf of your constituent, Mrs. Laurel Kuther of Clarkston, who asks that safety belts be required on school buses. your letter has been referred to my office for reply, since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for administering Federal programs relating to school bus safety.

I appreciate this opportunity to respond to your concerns. As explained below, NHTSA does not require large school buses to have safety belts for passengers because we require those buses to provide an alternate form of passenger crash protection. Our safety standards are directed at improving the interior of large school buses so that passengers will be provided adequate crash protection even if safety belts are not used.

I would like to begin with some background information on our school bus regulations. NHTSA is responsible for developing safety standards applicable to all new motor vehicles, including school buses. In 1977, we issued a set of motor vehicle safety standards for various aspects of school bus safety. Included in that set is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. Standard No. 222 requires large school buses--i.e., those with gross vehicle weight ratings over 10,000 pounds--to provide passenger crash protection through q concept called "compartmentalization." Compartmentalization requires that the interior of large buses be improved so that children are protected regardless of whether they have fastened a safety belt. The seating improvements include higher and stronger seat backs, additional seat padding, and better seat spacing and performance.

Our safety standards require a safety belt for the school bus driver since the driver's position is not compartmentalized. We also require safety belts for passengers in smaller school buses because those buses experience greater crash forces than do larger buses and the additional restraint system is needed to provide adequate crash protection for passengers.

However, because large school buses already offer substantial protection to passengers, we believe a Federal requirement for safety belts in those vehicles is unnecessary: In addition to meeting Federal school bus safety standards, large school buses are very safe vehicles because of their size and weight, the training and experience of their drivers and the extra care that other road users employ in the vicinity of school buses. NHTSA does not prevent States and local jurisdictions that wish to order safety belts on their own large school buses from doing so. Such a decision is a matter for the officials of the particular State or local jurisdiction, who are best able to assess their own pupil transportation needs.

A June 1985 NHTSA publication entitled, "Safety Belts in School Buses," discusses many of the issues relating to safety belts in large school buses. I have enclosed a copy of the report for your information.

I hope you have found this information to be helpful. If you or your constituent have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

U.S. Department of Transportation Washington, D.C. 20590 December 1, 1986

Dear Senator Gorton:

Thank you for your letter forwarding correspondence from your constituent, Mrs. Laurel Kuther.

I have transmitted your Inquiry to the appropriate Departmental officials who are familiar with this matter and they will respond to you directly.

I appreciate your contacting me and hope you will not hesitate to call if I can be of any further assistance.

Sincerely,

Edward J. Babbitt Director, Office of Congressional Affairs

Mr. David P. Sloane Director of Congressional Affairs Department of Transportation 400 7th Street SW, Rm. 10408 Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Sloane:

Enclosed please find a copy of a letter from Mrs. Laurel Kuther. As you will note, this constituent is concerned with seat belts on school buses.

Your comments on this matter may be forwarded to my Washington, D.C. office, Senate Office Building. Washington, D.C. 20510. I look forward to your prompt response. PLEASE MARK THE ENVELOPE TO THE ATTENTION OF: Pat McCausland.

Thank you for your attention to this inquiry.

Sincerely,

SLADE GORTON United States Senator

SG:pmm Enclosure SEE HARD COPY OF HAND WRITTEN LETTER