ID: 86-5.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/12/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Davis Thekkanath

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

SEP 12 86

Mr. Davis Thekkanath Oshkosh Truck Corporation P.O. Box 2566 2307 Oregon St. Oshkosh, WI 54903-2564

Dear Mr. Thekkanath:

This responds to your letter dated May 9, 1984, regarding the placement of the vehicle identification number (VIN) on heavy duty vehicles. You asked whether a heavy duty truck must have a VIN that meets the location requirement of S4.6 of the standard or whether the VIN for such a vehicle can be located on the vehicle certification plate. As discussed below, the VIN for a truck with a gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or more can be located on the vehicle certification plate.

Standard No. 115. Vehicle Identification Number - Basic Requirements, requires passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, incomplete vehicles, and motorcycles to have a VIN. S4.5 of the standard requires the VIN to appear indelibly on a part of the vehicle which is not designed to be removed except for repair or upon a separate plate which is permanently affixed to the vehicle. S4.6 of the standard specifies the location of the VIN inside the passenger compartment for passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks of 10,000 pounds or less GVWR. However, the VIN location requirement of S4.6 does not apply to vehicles with a GVWR over 10,000 pounds.

As you correctly noted, Part 567, Certification, requires the VIN to be located on the certification label of motor vehicles. Since S567.4(b) requires the certification label to be permanently affixed to the vehicle, the agency considers providing the VIN in this location as complying with the requirement of S4.5 of Standard No. 115.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

May 9, 1986

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th St. S.W. Washington. D.C. 20590

Subject: Placement of Vehicle Identification Number

Gentlemen:

We are manufacturers of heavy duty vehicles of GVWR of over 10,000 lbs. In our effort to find the exact federal requirement of the placement of the vehicle identification number, we scanned through FMVSS 115 for an answer. It specifically addresses in paragraph 4.6. vehicles of GVWR 10,000 lbs or less. Does this requirement apply for us also?

We currently have the certification label of which "VIN" is a part, placed inside the cab per 49 CFR 567 paragraph 4. Does this satisfy the "VIN" placement requirement? Does the regulation require that "VIN" be placed on any other part of the vehicle in addition to that on the certification label placed inside the cab?

We would appreciate your responding in writing to us as soon as possible.

Sincerely, OSHKOSH TRUCK CORPORATION

Davis Thekkanath Sr. Supervising Engineer

DT:ks

ID: 86-5.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/12/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. John C. Hilliard

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. John C. Hilliard Chairman & Technical Director Combustion and Fuel Research, Inc. 857-9 South Wagner Road Ann Arbor, MI 48103

Dear Mr. Hilliard:

Thank you for your letter of July 1, 1986 asking how our regulations would affect the placement of the steering wheel on delivery vehicles You asked whether there are any State or Federal regulations which would prevent the installation of a right hand drive steering wheel. As discussed below, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has not issued any safety standards that would prohibit the installation of a right hand drive steering wheel. As to State laws, I suggest you check with the Department of Transportation in the States where your client wants to use the vehicles.

Some background information about our agency and its standards may be of assistance to you. NHTSA has the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates alleged safety-related defects.

We do not have any standards that prohibit the use of a right hand drive steering system. We have, however, issued two safety standards (Standard Nos. 203 and 204) that set performance requirements which apply to any steering system, whether left or right hand drive, installed in new passenger cars and light trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles. A copy of each of these standards is enclosed.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

July 1, 1986.

Mr. Stephen Wood Assistant Chief Council for Rulemaking NHTSA 400 7th Street SW Room 5219 Washington DC 20590

Dear Mr. Wood:

On the advice of Mr. Charles Fisher, of the Michigan Department of Transportation , I am writing for information on the following matter.

We have a specific inquiry with regard to placement of the steering wheel on delivery vehicles. As you know, many postal service vehicles and street utility vehicles are equipped, with steering wheels on the right--hand side.

One of our clients is exploring the possible manufacture of delivery vehicles where the driver has to leave the cab at regular intervals. Could you please tell us whether there are any state and/or federal regulations which would prevent the installation of a right hand drive steering wheel for a privately owned, delivery company?

We thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely yours,

John C. Hilliard Chairman & Technical Director

JCH:ph

ID: 86-5.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/22/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood for Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Charles J. Newman

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Charles J. Newman Vice-President, Engineering The Grote Manufacturing Company 2600 Lanier Drive Madison, Indiana 47250

Dear Mr. Newman:

This is in reply to your letter of December 10, 1985, asking for an interpretation regarding two proposed locations for clearance lamps. As you know, our response has been delayed because the original letter lacked one of the the drawings necessary for us to reply to your questions.

You have paraphrased S4.3.1.1.1 of Standard No. 108 as stating "in part that clearance lamps need not be mounted on the front or rear and at such a location need not be visible at 45 degrees inboard." That is not exactly what that section permits. It states that "Clearance lamps may be mounted at a location other than on the front and rear if necessary to indicate the overall width of a vehicle, or for protection from damage during normal operation of the vehicle, and at such a location they need not be visible at 45 degrees inboard." Your first request for an interpretation concerns a "fixed body with additional equipment mounted on the box," and depicts clearance lamps that are mounted on the front of a structure behind the cab, and yet are not visible at 45 degrees inboard. You have asked whether this meets the intent of S4.3.1.1.1. The plan view diagram in your letter indicates that the clearance lamps, if mounted on the front (i.e., the cab) would not be located to indicate the overall width of the vehicle. But when mounted on the structure behind the cab, they appear located so as to indicate the overall width of the vehicle. You have not mentioned mounting height, but we assume that they are "as close to the top as practicable" In accordance with the requirements of Table II of Standard No. 108. Therefore the exception permitted by S4.3.1.1.1 would apply.

Your second request covers a "side mounted clearance lamp," and states that "Because of box construction and box size, a side mounted clearance lamp is a better location." In this location, the inboard visibility requirements would not be met. You asked whether this would meet the intent of S4.3.1.1.1.

The intent of S4.3.1.1.1 is that the alternate location indicate the overall width of the vehicle. If we judge compliance by the plan view of the diagram, then the location on the second diagram is acceptable. But in this location the inboard angle of visibility would be even less than in the first diagram, and the overall width of the vehicle would be less apparent to an incoming driver. Given the fact that you have presented us with alternative means by which you may meet S4. 3.1.1. 1 we cannot conclude that the location shown in the second diagram complies with Standard No. 108.

Sincerely

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

December 10, 1985

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Attn: Vincent Taylor

Re: Front mounted clearance lamps

Dear Mr. Vincent:

Due to a recent interpretation of FMVSS 108 and the construction of some truck bodies several of our customers have asked for recommendations on the mounting location of the front clearance lamps.

The vehicle manufacturer has in the past mounted five lamps on the top of the cab - three (3) indentification and two (2) clearance lamps-

Section "S4.3.1.1.1" of FMVSS 108 states in part that clearance lamps need not be mounted on the front or rear and at such a location need not be visible at 45o inboard.

This brings up several questionable mountings-

1. Fixed body with additional equipment mounted on the box.

(Please insert graphics)

We have outboard visibility and straight on visibility but do not have inboard visibility.

We would consider this mounting to meet the intent of S.4.3.1.1.1 of FMVSS 108.

Do you agree?

2. Side mounted clearance lamp-

(Please insert graphics)

Because of box construction and box size, a side mounted clearance lamp is a better location. We have outboard visibility and straight on visibility but do not have inboard visibility.

We would consider this mounting to meet the intent of S.4.3.1.1.1 of FMVSS 108.

Do you agree?

Sincerely,

THE GROTE MANUFACTURING COMPANY

Charles J. Newman Vice-President, Engineering

kp

ID: 86-5.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/16/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Skip Maraney

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Skip Maraney National Star Route Mail Contractor Association 324 East Capitol Street Washington, DC 20003

Dear Mr. Maraney:

This responds to your telephone inquiry about whether our regulations would prohibit the installation of a right hand drive steering system in a motor vehicle. We do not have any standards that prohibit the use of a right hand drive steering system. We have, however, issued two safety standards (Standard Nos. 203 and 204) that set performance requirements which apply to any steering system, whether left or right hand drive, installed in new passenger cars and light trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles. A copy of each of these standards is enclosed.

You also asked about the agency's regulations on the importation of motor vehicles. I have enclosed a copy of a publication, "Instructions Handbook for Complying with Regulations on Imported Vehicles," which will provide you with information about our importation regulations.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ID: 86-5.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/16/86

FROM: JEROME A. CZARNOWSKI

TO: CARL CLARK -- INVENTOR CONTACT NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/04/87, TO JEROME A CZARNOWSKI FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A30 (2), STANDARD 121

TEXT: Dear Dr. Clark,

Enclosed are copies of the un-edited and published versions of the article on the Emergency Air Reserve System (EARS) of which we spoke this morning. I retained copyright, while granting FIRE COMMAND one-time publication rights, which is our usual arrangement.

Basically, EARS is a separate high-pressure system intended to provide an emergency vehicle with enough air volume and pressure to charge the vehicle's integral system to operating pressure. Depending upon the volume of the integral system, this can be accomplished in four to ten seconds versus two to five minutes using the vehicle's air compressor from O PSI. In our business, cutting the response time in any emergency can mean life or death for the victim.

This system does not violate the integrity of the vehicle's system, since check-valves, a relief valve and one-way regulator are present. The components of the system are proven under the most demanding and abusive conditions.

The article points out other advantages to the system, and how some apparatus manufacturers are providing to solve the initial air-pressure problem. I doubt if some of the solutions I've seen (i.e., on-board diaphram compressors tied to the "wet tank") solve more problems than they create. I have also seen electrical air-selenoids on the discharge ports of air tanks to shut the tanks off when not in use (parked). Can you imagine the result if the electrical system fails while a fire engine is responding to a scene?

Thank you for your time in evaluating this device. As I stated over the phone, the Patent prospect looks favorable. However, I am more concerned with the safety for both the firefighter and the public.

Sincerely,

ID: 86-5.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/22/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Steven R. Taylor -- President and Owner, Team Visions, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Sep 22 1986

Mr. Steven R. Taylor President and Owner Team Visions, Inc. P.O. Box 85 Tujunga, CA 91042-0085

Dear Mr. Taylor:

This responds to your letter asking about regulations that apply to the manufacturer of reconditioned brake drums. According to your letter, you intend to put worn or damaged brake drums through a cleaning process and then fuse new material to the drums, enlarging them enough so that they can be re-machined to meet new drum specifications.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the "Vehicle Safety Act"), it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter and is limited to the regulations administered by this agency. You may wish to contact a local attorney concerning applicability of other Federal or state requirements to your business.

NHTSA has issued safety standards for both hydraulic-braked vehicles (Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems) and air-braked vehicles (Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems). In the case of a brake drum, whether sold new, used, or reconditioned, there is no applicable standard for it as a separate item of motor vehicle equipment. However, if the item is installed as original equipment on new vehicles, the vehicle manufacturer would be required to certify that the entire brake system satisfies the requirements of Standard No. 105 or Standard No. 121, as applicable. Also, if the item is added to a new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration.

If the brake drum is installed on a used vehicle by a business such as a garage, the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard. This is required by section 108(a)(2)(a) of the Vehicle Safety Act.

In all of the instances discussed so far, the legal responsibilities under the Vehicle Safety Act would not be on you as the manufacturer of reconditioned brake drums but instead on your customer, i.e., the vehicle manufacturer, alterer, or repairer. However, your customers might provide particular specifications for brake drums or request information from you in order to fulfill their responsibilities under the Act.

You should also be aware that the Vehicle Safety Act places certain responsibilities on all manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, regardless of whether a Federal motor vehicle safety standard applies to the equipment being produced. In particular, as discussed by an enclosed information sheet, the Act requires manufacturers to notify purchasers of safety-related defects and to remedy such defects without charge.

We note that since you would be a manufacturer of reconditioned brake drums rather than a manufacturer of entirely new brake drums, there is an issue of whether you are a manufacturer for purposes of the Vehicle Safety Act or instead a person who repairs used motor vehicle equipment. While a manufacturer of brake drums is subject to the Act's defect provisions as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, a person who repairs used brake drums is not. As discussed below, it is our opinion that the nature of your planned operations would make you a manufacturer under the Act.

Section 102(5) of the Vehicle Safety Act provides that the term "manufacturer" means "any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale.. The dictionary defines "manufacture" as "the making of goods or wares by manual labor or by machinery, esp. on a large scale . . ." Random House Dictionary of the English Language (unabridged edition).

NHTSA has in the past considered the issue of what types of operations make a person a manufacturer with respect to retreaded tires and remanufactured wheels. A person who retreads tires is considered to be a manufacturer under the Vehicle Safety Act. The retreading process involves significant manufacturing operations, which do not differ substantially from those of manufacturing new tires. By contrast, a person who remanufactures wheels is not considered to be a manufacturer under the Vehicle Safety Act. The process of remanufacturing wheels consists of such things as straightening, re-welding parts, and repairing cracks by welding. These types of actions are not significant manufacturing operations, but instead are the type of operations commonly performed in repair shops.

It is our opinion that the combined operation of fusing new material to brake drums and then re-machining the drums to meet new drum specifications constitutes a significant manufacturing operation rather than the type of operation performed in repair shops. Accordingly, we have concluded that you would be considered a manufacturer under the Vehicle Safety Act.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

June 16,1986

National Highway Transportation Safety Administration Chief Council 400 7th S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Attn : Officer Engineering Dwaine Perrin

Dear Mr. Perrin:

This letter is a follow-up to the telephone conversation that you had with my secretary, Anita Puckett, a few weeks ago concerning any regulations that may govern us as a reconditioned brake drum manufacturer.

Team Visions, Inc., i s a new corporation that has intentions of doing business as a brake drum reconditioning service, whereby, we put a worn or damaged brake drum through a cleaning process and then fuse new material to the drum enlarging it enough so that it can be re-machined to meet new drum specifications.

Our anticipated date of opening is September 1, 1986. In light of this, please send a letter stating your findings of any regulations that may govern us to the undersigned at the letterhead address.

Thank you for your time and assistance.

Steven R. Taylor President and Owner SRT:Sz

ID: 86-5.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/22/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. T.E. McConnell

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. T. E. McConnell Prince Lionheart 2301 Cape Cod Way Santa Ana, CA 92703

Dear Mr. McConnell:

Thank you for your letter of July 31, 1986, inquiring about the Federal safety standards that apply to roll-up window shades designed to be attached to a vehicle's window by suction cups. The following discussion explains how our safety standards apply to your products.

Some background information on how Federal Motor Vehicle Safety laws and regulations affect your product may be helpful. Our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead the Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates other alleged safety-related defects. As explained below, installation of products in new and used vehicles would be affected by our regulations. In addition, any manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment is subject to the requirements of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with noncompliances or defects related to motor vehicle safety.

We have issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).

No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and other sun screen devices, such as the ones described in your letter, in new vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard.

After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to a vehicle are affected by section 108(a) (2) (n) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from tampering with safety equipment installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. Thus, no dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor can install a sun screen device for the owner of the vehicle, if the device would cause the window not to meet the requirements of Standard No. 205. Violation of section 108(h) (2) (A) can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.

Section 108 (6)( 2) (A) does not affect vehicle owners who may themselves alter their vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may install sun screening devices regardless of whether the installation adversely affects the light transmittance. The agency, however, urges vehicle owners not to take actions that would degrade the performance of required safety features. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States top preclude owners from using sun screens in their vehicles.

I am returning, under separate cover, the two samples of your product you provided the agency. If you need further information, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

July 31, 1986

Office of Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington. D.C. 20590

Dear Sir:

Mr. Ralph Hitchcock of the NHTSA Rule Making Office referred me to the Office of Chief Counsel in my effort to obtain a determination that PRINCE LIONHEART'S BABYBRELLAtm and sUNBRELLAtm roll-up automobile window shades are in compliance with all State and Federal laws regarding window coverings.

I am enclosing a sample BABYBRELLAtm and a packaged sUNBRELLA for your reference. The package for the BABYBRELLAtm is identical to that of the sUNBRELLAtm except for the name and logo.

Please note that the shade, itself, does not come in contact with the window's surface and it's roll-up feature allows it to be easily raised for driving at night or on cloudy days. We have found these items to be extremely useful in protecting a car's occupants from sun, heat and glare while providing a safe alternative to sheets and towels which many people use to protect themselves and their children from the sun.

I will appreciate your prompt response to this request and please feel free to call the undersigned should any questions arise.

Very truly yours,

T.E. McConnell PRINCE LIONHEART

TEM/pd encl.

ID: 86-5.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/25/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Doug Bereuter

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

The Honorable Doug Bereuter Member, U.S. House of Representatives P.O. Box 82887 Lincoln, NE 68501

Dear Mr Bereuter:

Thank you for your July 18, 1986, correspondence enclosing a letter from your constituent, Ms. Dianna L. Prosser of Beatrice, who asked about Federal regulations for safety belts 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 regret the delay in our response.

Ms. Prosser believes that the Federal government should encourage States to enact laws requiring passengers to use safety belts on school buses. She suggests that such a requirement would be consistent with State laws requiring the driver of a passenger car or school bus to use his or her safety belt. She asks also whether any states have enacted requirements for safety belt use in school buses.

I appreciate this opportunity to respond to your constituent's concerns. I would like to begin by clarifying that safety belts are not required by Federal law to be installed for passengers on large school buses. We have been carefully examining the issue of safety belts on large school buses. While NHTSA has often explained that States are free to order safety belts on their large school buses if they wish to do so, we believe that large school buses are very safe and that safety belts for passengers are not needed for safety.

Some background information on our school bus regulations might be helpful. 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 a 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, large school buses already offer substantial protection to passengers and a Federal endorsement 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 height, the training and experience of their drivers and the extra care that other road users employ in the vicinity of school buses. As stated earlier, 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.

Issues relating to safety belts in large school buses are discussed in a June, 1985 NHTSA publication entitled "Safety Belts in School Buses." I have enclosed a copy of the report for Ms. Prosser's information.

Ms. Prosser also asked whether any State mandates the installation and use of safety belts in buses. New York has recently required installation of safety belts for passengers in large school buses. Requirements for the use of the belts would be set by the local board of education or board of trustees.

I would like to reiterate that the agency does not endorse installation of safety belts for passengers on large school buses because we believe belts are not necessary to provide adequate crash protection. This contrasts with the data we have with regard to the use of safety belts by persons driving passenger cars. The Department's decision to promote effective State laws requiring the proper use of safety belts in passenger cars reflects our finding that safety belts substantially reduce deaths and serious injuries in a crash. If comparable data were available for school buses, our agency would not hesitate to take necessary and expeditious action.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure

Congress of the United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C.

July 18, 1986

Sir:

The attached communication is sent for your consideration. Please investigate the statements contained therein and forward me the necessary information for reply, returning the enclosed correspondence with your answer.

Yours truly,

DOUG BEREUTER, M.C.

Please respond to: Pat Wergin District Staff P.O. Box 82887 Lincoln, NE 68501

June 27, 1986

Mr. Doug Bereuter Nebraska Representative U. S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Bereuter:

After much consideration, I have decided this issue should be addressed at the national level and not the state level.

Many states now have lawamaking it mandatory to wear seat belts when riding in the front seats of cars. Do any states mandate the provision of and use of seat belts on school buses? I have riden school buses and know that children don't always remain seated as they should. This has to be a source of great distraction for the driver. It it my understanding that school bus drivers must wear seat belts, maybe the children should too.

There was a school bus accident involving one of our city school buses this spring. Several of the students were injured and treated at the hospital, some school days were missed. The bus overturned and students were thrown as it turned. Some of these injuries surely could have been prevented if seat belts had been in use. Constantly, during the school year, we hear of accidents involving school buses that turned out worse.

Your consideration of this matter would be appreciated.

Sincerely, Dianna L. Prosser 705 Elk St. Beatrice, NE 68310

ID: 2636o

The Honorable Harris W. Fawell
House of Representatives
Washington DC 20515

Dear Mr. Fawell:

I have been asked to respond to your recent letter asking the Department of Transportation to provide you with information concerning the use of safety belts on school buses. You ask for this information on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Wayne Mann, in the Illinois Palos Community Consolidated Schools. Mr. Mann specifically seeks "factual information relative to seat (lap) belts on school buses," and information on funding for traffic safety programs involving hazardous conditions outside the school bus.

I would like to begin with some background information on our school bus regulations. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (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 regulating various aspects of school bus performance. Among those standards is Standard 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. Standard 222 requires large school buses (those with a gross vehicle weight rating over 10,000 pounds) to have passenger crash protection through a concept called "compartmentalization."

Compartmentalization requires large school buses to incorporate certain protective elements into the vehicles' interior construction, thereby reducing the risk of injury to school bus passengers without the need for safety belts. These elements include high seats with heavily padded backs and improved seat spacing and performance. (Our regulations require a safety belt for the school bus driver because the driver's position is not compartmentalized. Further, because small school buses experience greater force levels in a crash, passengers on these vehicles need the added safety benefits of the belts.)

School buses continue to have one of the lowest fatality rates for any class of motor vehicle. Large school buses are among the safest motor vehicles because of their size and weight (which generally reduce an occupant's exposure to injury-threatening crash forces); the drivers' training and experience; and the extra care other motorists take when they are near a school bus. For these reasons, NHTSA has not required safety belts in large school buses.

I enclose a copy of a June 1985 NHTSA publication titled "Safety Belts in School Buses," which discusses many of the issues relative to this subject. I think your constituent may find this information helpful.

With respect to hazardous conditions outside the school bus, the agency realizes that there are special problems of driver visibility associated with transporting students. NHTSA has addressed these problems in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 111, Rearview mirrors, paragraph S9. In 1975, NHTSA established special mirror requirements for school buses "to reduce the danger of death or injury to school children (by giving) the school bus driver the fullest possible view of all sides of the vehicle..." (The proposed rule, including this preamble quotation, appears at 40 FR 33828, 33829, August 12, 1975. The final rule was published originally at 41 FR 36023, August 26, 1976.) One of these special requirements is that manufacturers equip a school bus with a crossview mirror that permits the driver to see the area in front of the bus. These special school bus mirror requirements help contribute to the low number of fatalities associated with school bus travel.

Your constituent also mentions funding to implement a program to address hazardous conditions outside the school bus. The agency believes that its school bus regulations effectively address the safety of school bus design and performance, and contribute to occupant safety.

We note, however, that /402 of the Highway Safety Act, provides funds to each State for its use in conducting a highway safety program. Some of these funds are distributed by the State to local governments or organizations within the State. To get information on Illinois' /402 funds, I suggest that your constituent contact the Illinois Governor's Representative for Highway Safety, Mr. Melvin H. Smith, Director, Division of Traffic Safety, 319 Administration Bldg., 2300 South Dirksen Pkwy., Springfield, IL 62764.

If you or Mr. Mann have further questions, I encourage you to contact our agency.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:111#222 d:1/12/88

ID: 2636y

Mr. Jack E. Eanes
Chief, Vehicle Services
State of Delaware
Department of Public Safety
Division of Motor Vehicles
P. O. Box 698
Dover, Delaware, 19903

Dear Mr. Eanes:

This is in response to your letter asking whether very darkly tinted rear windows that obscure the center highmounted stop lamp (CHMSL) required in passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985 would violate any Federal laws or regulations. Let me begin by apologizing for the delay in this response. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations for you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to issue two safety standards that are relevant to your question. The first of these is Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (49 CFR 571.108), which applies to all new vehicles and new replacement equipment for motor vehicles. Among the requirements set forth in this Standard is a requirement for all passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985 to be equipped with a CHMSL of specified minimum size, brightness, and visibility from the range of locations set forth in the standard. The second relevant standard is Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205). This standard applies to all new vehicles and all new glazing for use in motor vehicles, and includes specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance of the glazing (70 percent light transmittance in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) provides that no person may manufacture or sell any vehicle unless it is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. A new passenger car with a rear window tinted so darkly that the CHMSL was not easily visible would probably not be in conformity with Standards No. 108 and 205, and so could not legally be manufactured or sold in the United States. However, this prohibition on the manufacture or sale of a nonconforming vehicle does not apply after a vehicle is first sold to a consumer.

Both before and after the first sale of a vehicle, section 108(a)(2) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)) provides that: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . ." If any of the listed commercial entities were to install tint film or otherwise darken the rear windows on passenger cars so that the light transmittance of that window plus the darkening material was below 70 percent, those entities would be "rendering inoperative" the light transmittance of the rear window of the car, in violation of Federal law. This same prohibition in Federal law makes it unlawful for a service station to permanently remove the safety belts or permanently disconnect the brake lines on a car.

Please note that the Safety Act does not apply to the actions of individual vehicle owners. Vehicle owners may alter their own vehicles and operate them on the highways as they please, even if the vehicle no longer complies with the safety standards after such alterations. Hence, no provision of the Safety Act or our safety standards makes it unlawful for vehicle owners themselves to tint or otherwise darken the rear window of their car so that its light transmittance is below 70 percent and/or its CHMSL is obscured.

The individual States, however, do have authority to regulate the modifications that vehicle owners may make to their own vehicles. The States also have the authority to establish requirements for vehicles to be registered or operated in that State.

You indicated in your letter that the State of Delaware "allows vehicle rear windows to be tinted as dark as the owner desires." While I am not familiar with Delaware law, I assume that this statute, and similar statutes adopted by other States, does not purport to legitimize conduct -- the rendering inoperative of glazing and CHMSLs by firms installing window tinting -- that is illegal under Federal law. In other words, any commercial firms installing window tinting that results in light transmittance of less than 70 percent and/or reduces the required brightness of the CHMSL would have violated the "render inoperative" provision in Federal law, even if Delaware permits individual owners to make such modifications themselves and to register and operate vehicles with rear windows and CHMSLs that would not comply with the requirements of the Federal safety standards for new vehicles. Conversely, the Federal law setting requirements for the manufacture and sale of new vehicles and limiting the modifications commercial enterprises can make to those vehicles does not prohibit the State of Delaware from establishing lesser limits on owner modifications to their own vehicles and as the minimum requirements for vehicles to be operated and registered in the State of Delaware.

Thus, there does not appear to be any legal conflict between Federal law and Delaware law, and Delaware would be free to enforce the provisions of its law. We would, however, urge the State of Delaware to carefully consider the adverse safety consequences that will result from the provision of its law. NHTSA has determined that a 70 percent light transmittance minimum for new vehicles is the appropriate level to assure motor vehicle safety, and that the CHMSL on passenger cars enhances motor vehicle safety. It is not clear why the State of Delaware would conclude that the safety need that justifies requiring not less than 70 percent light transmittance and CHMSLs in new passenger cars is satisfied by allowing far lower light transmittance levels and lower-brightness CHMSLs in passenger cars to be operated in the State.

I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need additional information about this topic, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /ref:108#205#VSA d:7/3l/90