ID: 18185a

Mark A. M. Ezra, CEng, MIMechE.
Senne, Kelsey & Associates, Inc.
1154 North Warson Road
St. Louis, MO 63132

Dear Mr. Ezra:

This responds to your request for information regarding installation of a hand operated accelerator control system for mobility impaired persons. I apologize for the delay in responding. You wish to know whether a vehicle that has such a system would meet Federal requirements. Our answer is that it appears our requirements would not be met.

Background: Description of Control System

Your letter explains that you are investigating crashes involving two vehicles modified for quadriplegic drivers. Both crashes involved a system called the Electronic Gas and Brake (EGB) Control, manufactured by EMC, Incorporated. The system for each of the two vehicles was apparently placed on the vehicles by a party other than the original vehicle manufacturer.

Your review determined that both crashes involved failures of the electronic throttle system, resulting from the throttle staying in the open position despite reported efforts by the vehicle operators and their able bodied passengers to return the controls to a position which should have brought the engine to idle and applied the brakes.

Your letter describes the EGB Control system as consisting of a dual battery power supply feeding a control box on which is mounted a single plane joy stick. Movement of the joy stick forwards or rearwards causes a servomotor to rotate to a position proportional to the joystick displacement and open the engine's throttle. You describe the system as follows:

The servomotor is positioned near the vehicle's normal brake pedal and accelerator pedal. It has a drum on the output shaft which has a lever attached to it. When the servomotor turns in the desired direction to cause acceleration of the vehicle, a cable connected to the servomotor drum and the vehicle's accelerator pedal is wound onto the servomotor's drum. This action pulls the accelerator pedal of the vehicle down thus accelerating the vehicle. When the vehicle is to be slowed, the servomotor drives in the opposite direction unwinding the cable from the drum. Attached to the servo drum is an arm. After the drum passes the position corresponding to idle for the accelerator, the arm attached to the servo drum bears on the vehicle's brake pedal arm. As the joy stick is moved rearwards of the neutral position (optionally forward depending on selected settings), this lever pushes proportionally more and more on the brake pedal and so applies the brakes of the vehicle harder and harder. The braking is proportional to the joy stick displacement from its neutral position.

You further write that in the crashes under investigation, you believe that either the electrical power cable to the controller or the electrical servomotor cable from the controller to the servomotor became partially or completely detached. According to your letter, when the power cable becomes disconnected the servomotor will remain in the position it was in last when electrical disconnection took place. If this occurs while the vehicle is being accelerated, the vehicle will continue to accelerate indefinitely and in an uncontrolled manner. If this disconnection occurs while in cruise, then the vehicle can not be slowed since the motor cannot be returned to idle nor the brakes applied.

NHTSA obtained a copy of the EGB-IIF "Installation Guide," issued by EMC, Inc. Page three of the guide describes an EGB-IIF cable called the J1 that is the power connection. The guide describes this cable as "the only cable that will interface the vehicle system directly." Apparently this means that there is only one EGB cable that connects to the source of power on the modified motor vehicle.

Discussion

With this background information, I will address your question, which asks whether a throttle system operating as you describe complies with Standard No. 124.

NHTSA cannot make a determination in an interpretation letter whether a particular vehicle complies with a standard. Matters of compliance with our safety standards can only be determined in the context of an enforcement proceeding. However, we will make general observations about Standard No. 124's requirements, as they would apply to a vehicle with a throttle system such as the one you describe.

Standard No. 124 establishes requirements for the return of a vehicle's throttle to the idle position when the driver removes the actuating force from the accelerator control, or in the event of a severance or disconnection in the accelerator control system.⁽¹⁾ The purpose of the standard is to reduce deaths and injuries resulting from engine overspeed caused by malfunctions in the accelerator control system. The standard requires each new vehicle to meet the requirements specified in S5 of the standard.

S5.1 states:

There shall be at least two sources of energy capable of returning the throttle to the idle position within the time limit specified by S5.3 from any accelerator position or speed whenever the driver removes the opposing actuating force. In the event of failure of one source of energy by a single severance or disconnection, the throttle shall return to the idle position within the time limits specified by S5.3, from any accelerator position or speed whenever the driver removes the opposing actuating force.

Paragraph S5.2 of the standard states:

The throttle shall return to the idle position from any accelerator position or any speed of which the engine is capable whenever any one component of the accelerator control system is disconnected or severed at a single point. The return to idle shall occur within the time limit specified by S5.3, measured either from the time of severance or disconnection or from the first removal of the opposing actuating force by the driver.

The term "driver-operated accelerator control system" is defined in S4 of the standard as "all vehicle components, except the fuel metering device, that regulate engine speed in direct response to movement of the driver-operated control and that return the throttle to the idle position upon release of the actuating force." The EGB control is included within this definition of an accelerator control system. The terms "throttle" and "idle position" are also defined in the standard. We assume that your use of those terms in your letter is consistent with these definitions.

It is unclear from your letter whether the EGB system was installed before or after the first sale of the vehicle to the consumer. A person installing the system on a new, completed, motor vehicle would be considered an "alterer" under 49 CFR Part 567.7, Requirements for persons who alter certified vehicles. Part 567.7 provides that an alterer must place an alterer's label on the vehicle, stating that the vehicle, as altered, conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards affected by the alteration.

It does not appear that a new vehicle, altered by installation of the EGB system, will meet the requirements of Standard No. 124. The installation guide describes the J1 Power cable as "the only cable that will interface the vehicle system directly." It is unclear whether the EGB system meets S5.1, which requires two sources of energy capable of returning the throttle to the idle position and a return to idle in the event of failure of one source of energy. It also appears that if the cable connector is disconnected at the J1 connector of the controller, the throttle will not return to idle as required by S5.2 of the standard.

After the sale of the vehicle to the first purchaser, a motor vehicle manufacturer, dealer, distributor or repair business modifying the vehicle must not "knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard." (See 49 USC 30122, Making safety devices and elements inoperative.) A "motor vehicle repair business" is defined as a "person holding itself out to the public to repair for compensation a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment" (49 USC 30122(a)). A person in any of the above-mentioned categories who makes inoperative the vehicle's compliance with S5.1 or S5.2, or any other applicable standard, is subject to civil penalties for violating 30122.

On September 28, 1998 (63 FR 51547), NHTSA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to exempt some modifications for handicapped persons from the "make inoperative" prohibition. This proposal would generally permit some modifications that have an unavoidable adverse effect on safety equipment or features installed pursuant to certain safety standards. In the proposal, NHTSA tentatively concluded that an exemption would not be made for making inoperative safety features installed pursuant to Standard No. 124, because the agency tentatively believes that compliance with the standard can be maintained without adversely affecting the ability of handicapped persons to operate a vehicle. The agency is reviewing the public comments in response to the notice. We will place of a copy of your letter in the public file for the proposal (docket number NHTSA-98-4332), along with a copy of this response.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:124
d.3/26/99

1. Standard No. 124 applies to new, completed motor vehicles, and not to aftermarket components of accelerator control systems. We have not issued a Federal safety standard that directly applies to hand controls. However, hand controls are items of "motor vehicle equipment." Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment must ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects (49 U.S.C. 30118-30121). In the event that the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the safety-related defect and remedying the defect free of charge. (This "recall" responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which the equipment is installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.)

ID: nht94-2.82

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 12, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jerry Schwebel -- Executive Vice President, Travel Safety Children's Products, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 11/9/93 From Jerry Schwebel To Walter Myers (OCC-9316)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Schwebel:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Walter Myers of my staff asking about a particular feature of your "air-filled car seat" and how Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems," would apply. I apologize for the delay in resp onding.

Your letter and the promotional literature you enclosed describe the car seat as having a 5-point belt system to provide upper and lower torso restraint. The seat also has a strap that crosses in front of the child's chest, that attaches to each side of the child seat "to offer additional side impact protection by keeping the leading side of the seat attached to the opposite side so as to prevent the child from rolling out." You state that the strap is not part of the primary restraint system and is no n-load bearing in a frontal impact. You ask if there is any problem with the strap feature.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. @ 1381, et seq. (Safety Act), authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new mo tor vehicles and new 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 Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts set forth in your letter.

Standard 213 specifies requirements for child restraint systems used in motor vehicles and aircraft, to reduce the number of children killed or injured in motor vehicle crashes and in aircraft. S5.2.2, "Torso impact protection," states in part that each add-on, forward-facing child restraint system

shall have no fixed or movable surface . . . [d]irectly forward of the dummy and intersected by a horizontal

2

line . . . parallel to the SORL [seat orientation reference line illustrated in Figure 1A of the standard] . . . and passing through any portion of the dummy, except for surfaces which restrain the dummy when the system is tested in accordance with S6.1. 2.1.2, so that the child restraint system shall conform to the requirements of S5.1.2 and S5.1.3.1.

The purpose of S5.2.2 is to prohibit child seats from having any surface or component that can be mistaken by motorists to be a means of adequately restraining the child occupant in a crash. 43 FR 21470, 21475 (May 18, 1978). A strap in front of the dum my would be prohibited by S5.2.2, unless it is provided to restrain the dummy in S6.1.2.1.2's dynamic test so that the system conforms to Standard 213's injury criteria for head and chest accelerations and occupant excursion. Since you indicate the stra p is not meant to be load bearing in a frontal impact, it does not appear that the strap would perform adequately. n1 Accordingly, it appears the strap is prohibited.

n1 The strap may be installed if it provides adequate protection. To measure the adequacy of the performance of a child seat with such a strap, the child seat will be tested at 20 mph with the strap placed in front of the child, but without the dummy strapped into the restraint system. The child seat must pass the occupant excursion and other dynamic performance requirements without use of the primary restraint system. See, test procedures for 20 mph test, S6.1.2.1.2, S6.1.2.3.1(c)(ii).

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need additional information, please call Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ID: nht94-5.39

DATE: May 12, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jerry Schwebel -- Executive Vice President, Travel Safety Children's Products, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 11/9/93 From Jerry Schwebel To Walter Myers (OCC-9316)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Schwebel:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Walter Myers of my staff asking about a particular feature of your "air-filled car seat" and how Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems," would apply. I apologize for the delay in responding.

Your letter and the promotional literature you enclosed describe the car seat as having a 5-point belt system to provide upper and lower torso restraint. The seat also has a strap that crosses in front of the child's chest, that attaches to each side of the child seat "to offer additional side impact protection by keeping the leading side of the seat attached to the opposite side so as to prevent the child from rolling out." You state that the strap is not part of the primary restraint system and is non-load bearing in a frontal impact. You ask if there is any problem with the strap feature.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. @ 1381, et seq. (Safety Act), authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new 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 Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts set forth in your letter.

Standard 213 specifies requirements for child restraint systems used in motor vehicles and aircraft, to reduce the number of children killed or injured in motor vehicle crashes and in aircraft. S5.2.2, "Torso impact protection," states in part that each add-on, forward-facing child restraint system

shall have no fixed or movable surface . . . [d]irectly forward of the dummy and intersected by a horizontal

2

line . . . parallel to the SORL [seat orientation reference line illustrated in Figure 1A of the standard] . . . and passing through any portion of the dummy, except for surfaces which restrain the dummy when the system is tested in accordance with S6.1.2.1.2, so that the child restraint system shall conform to the requirements of S5.1.2 and S5.1.3.1.

The purpose of S5.2.2 is to prohibit child seats from having any surface or component that can be mistaken by motorists to be a means of adequately restraining the child occupant in a crash. 43 FR 21470, 21475 (May 18, 1978). A strap in front of the dummy would be prohibited by S5.2.2, unless it is provided to restrain the dummy in S6.1.2.1.2's dynamic test so that the system conforms to Standard 213's injury criteria for head and chest accelerations and occupant excursion. Since you indicate the strap is not meant to be load bearing in a frontal impact, it does not appear that the strap would perform adequately. n1 Accordingly, it appears the strap is prohibited.

n1 The strap may be installed if it provides adequate protection. To measure the adequacy of the performance of a child seat with such a strap, the child seat will be tested at 20 mph with the strap placed in front of the child, but without the dummy strapped into the restraint system. The child seat must pass the occupant excursion and other dynamic performance requirements without use of the primary restraint system. See, test procedures for 20 mph test, S6.1.2.1.2, S6.1.2.3.1(c)(ii).

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need additional information, please call Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ID: 9316

Mr. Jerry Schwebel
Executive Vice President
Travel Safety Children's Products, Inc.
1276 Fiftieth Street
Brooklyn, NY 11219

Dear Mr. Schwebel:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Walter Myers of my staff asking about a particular feature of your "air-filled car seat" and how Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems," would apply. I apologize for the delay in responding.

Your letter and the promotional literature you enclosed describe the car seat as having a 5-point belt system to provide upper and lower torso restraint. The seat also has a strap that crosses in front of the child's chest, that attaches to each side of the child seat "to offer additional side impact protection by keeping the leading side of the seat attached to the opposite side so as to prevent the child from rolling out." You state that the strap is not part of the primary restraint system and is non-load bearing in a frontal impact. You ask if there is any problem with the strap feature.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq. (Safety Act), authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new 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 Safety Act establishes a "self- certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts set forth in your letter.

Standard 213 specifies requirements for child restraint systems used in motor vehicles and aircraft, to reduce the number of children killed or injured in motor vehicle crashes and in aircraft. S5.2.2, "Torso impact protection," states in part that each add-on, forward-facing child restraint system

shall have no fixed or movable surface...[d]irectly forward of the dummy and intersected by a horizontal line...parallel to the SORL [seat orientation reference line illustrated in Figure 1A of the standard]... and passing through any portion of the dummy, except for surfaces which restrain the dummy when the system is tested in accordance with S6.1.2.1.2, so that the child restraint system shall conform to the requirements of S5.1.2 and S5.1.3.1.

The purpose of S5.2.2 is to prohibit child seats from having any surface or component that can be mistaken by motorists to be a means of adequately restraining the child occupant in a crash. 43 FR 21470, 21475 (May 18, 1978). A strap in front of the dummy would be prohibited by S5.2.2, unless it is provided to restrain the dummy in S6.1.2.1.2's dynamic test so that the system conforms to Standard 213's injury criteria for head and chest accelerations and occupant excursion. Since you indicate the strap is not meant to be load bearing in a frontal impact, it does not appear that the strap would perform adequately. The strap may be installed if it provides adequate protection. To measure the adequacy of the performance of a child seat with such a strap, the child seat will be tested at 20 mph with the strap placed in front of the child, but without the dummy strapped into the restraint system. The child seat must pass the occupant excursion and other dynamic performance requirements without use of the primary restraint system. See, test procedures for 20 mph test, S6.1.2.1.2, S6.1.2.3.1(c)(ii). Accordingly, it appears the strap is prohibited.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need additional information, please call Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:213 d:5/12/94

ID: nht88-4.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/09/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: VICKY JOHNSON -- OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL, KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 5-11-88 TO: ERIKA Z. JONES, NHTSA, FROM VICKY S. JOHNSON, KANSAS DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION

TEXT: This is a response to your letter asking for my comments on a school transportation issue that has arisen in Kansas. I apologize for the delay in this response. You explained that, in the past, many school districts in your State used vans with more th an ten seating positions to transport school children, even though these vehicles were not certified as meeting Federal school bus standards. According to your letter, you informed those school districts that there are "civil liability risks" associated with transporting students in vehicles that do not meet Federal school bus standards. Further, you said you informed those districts that a manufacturer or dealer who sells a school district a bus that is not a certified school bus may be in violation of Federal law. According to your letter, most of those school districts now recognize the "considerable risks" associated with this practice.

You are concerned that some of these districts are now purchasing the same vehicles that were previously certified as buses, but the vehicles now have only ten seating positions. Accordingly, the vehicles are now certified by the manufacturer as multipu rpose passenger vehicles (MPVs). You believe that this situation is not a violation of Federal law because dealers are no longer selling school districts "buses" that are not certified as school buses. However, you believe there is still a considerable risk of civil liability for the school districts in the event of a crash. You asked for our comments on this practice.

Generally speaking, there is no violation of Federal law when a dealer sells a properly certified MPV to a school district. On the other hand, NHTSA has maintained a long-standing position that if a dealer sells an MPV or bus capable of being converted and used as a school bus to a school or a school bus contract operator, that dealer is responsible for ensuring that the vehicle complies with all applicable school bus standards. (40 FR 60033, 60034, December 31, 1975.) For example, let us assume that a dealer sells a school district a vehicle that is certified as an MPV by its manufacturer. The vehicle has ten designated seating

positions when it is delivered to the dealer, but is large enough to accomodate an additional bench seat, which would result in the vehicle having at least 13 designated seating positions. In this instance, a dealer who sells such a vehicle to a school district would have violated the prohibition in section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C.

1397(a)(1)(A) against selling vehicles that do not comply with all applicable safety standards.

In essence, NHTSA has concluded that a dealer may not legally sell a school district a vehicle that is capable of being converted into a school bus, unless:

1. that vehicle is certified as complying with applicable school bus standards; or

2. the dealer has reason to believe that the buyer has no intent of converting and using the vehicle as a school bus.

If the dealer is uncertain of the buyer's intent, the agency has suggested that the dealer request a written statement of purpose from the buyer. (Id.) The agency has taken this position because the dealer frequently is the person in the distribution ch ain with the best knowledge of how a buyer intends to use a vehicle.

Applying this reasoning to the situations described in your letter, the dealers selling MPVs to school districts might have done so in violation of Federal law. If the MPVs in question were capable of being converted into school buses, and the dealer had reason to believe that the purchasing school district intended to convert the vehicles to school buses, the dealer could only sell the MPV to the school district if the vehicles were certified as conforming to all applicable school bus standards. Your letter did not provide enough information for us to offer an opinion on any such potential liability. If you know of instances where a dealer may have sold vehicles to a school district under circumstances such as I describe here, please report this inf ormation to the Office of Enforcement, NHTSA, Room 6113, NEF-30 at the address on this letterhead.

With respect to your question about the risk of civil liability in the event one of these vehicles is in a crash, that is a question of State, not Federal law. I am not qualified to offer an opinion on how the matter would be resolved under Kansas law. I suggest that you contact the Attorney General for the State of Kansas to get an opinion about how the laws of Kansas would apply in such a situation.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Joan Tilghman of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 2885o

Mr. R.A. Bynum
Associate Director, Pupil Transportation Service
Virginia Department of Education
P.O. Box 60
Richmond, VA 23216-2060

Dear Mr. Bynum:

This is a response to your letter of January 25, 1988, where you asked this agency to "provide (your Department) with the precise language of the various federal laws and regulations which describes the application and enforcement of the April 1, 1977 school vehicle regulations." You state that Virginia has "agreed to enforce" the Federal school bus regulations by requiring that "all school activity buses purchased, leased or contracted for after January 1, 1985" comply with Federal school bus regulations.

You state that according to your maintenance records for vehicles in the school bus fleet, some "Detroit Line" vans do not comply with Federal regulations, and Virginia may wish to take some action (1) to remove certain "noncomplying" vehicles from the school bus fleet, and (2) to warn dealers and manufacturers against selling noncomplying vehicles to Virginia school divisions. You state that you are concerned with "school activity vehicles which were designed for more than ten passenger capacity," and say that the State of Virginia may order some school districts to remove certain vehicles from service, because they appear not to comply with Federal safety standards for school buses.

As I read your letter and the materials you submit with it, your principal concern seems to be with the compliance requirements for passenger vans with at least 11 designated seating positions, and used to transport students to and from school-related events. Let me begin by explaining that under Federal regulations, there is no vehicle classification called "van." Instead, a passenger van is classified either as a "multipurpose passenger vehicle" (MPV) or a "bus," depending primarily upon its seating capacity. An MPV is a motor vehicle (1) designed to carry a driver and nine or fewer passengers, (in other words, with not more than 10 designated seating positions), and (2) either constructed on a truck chassis or equipped with features for off-road operation. A bus is a motor vehicle designed to carry a driver and 10 or more passengers. (In other words, a bus has at least 11 designated seating positions.) If that vehicle with at least 11 designated seating positions also is manufactured and sold to carry school children, then the vehicle is not just a bus, but a school bus. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Vehicle Safety Act) and regulations issued under it, define a school bus in terms of (1) the vehicle's designed capacity for carrying people, and (2) the vehicle's intended use. More specifically, a school bus is a motor vehicle designed for carrying a driver and 10 or more passengers, and sold for transporting students to and from school or school-related events. Please note that a vehicle with at least ll designated seating positions intended for use in transporting students to school-related activities is a school bus even if the vehicle is not used to transport students to and from school.

Please note further that NHTSA uses its definition of school bus in regulating the manufacture and sale of new vehicles. A new vehicle that meets the definition of a school bus must meet Federal safety standards for school buses. A school bus manufacturer must certify that its vehicles meet all applicable Federal safety standards, and a commercial seller must sell only a complying vehicle as a school bus. In your letter, you state that Virginia may warn some dealers and manufacturers against selling noncomplying vehicles to your school districts. If a dealer has in its inventory, a motor vehicle with at least 11 designated seating positions, and if that vehicle is not certified as complying with all Federal safety standards applicable to a school bus, then in all likelihood, the dealer has violated the Vehicle Safety Act if he sells or has sold a noncomplying vehicle to a Virginia school district.

This is because NHTSA has maintained a long-standing position that if a dealer sells an MPV or bus capable of being converted and used as a school bus to a school or a school bus contract operator, that dealer is responsible for certifying the vehicle's compliance with school bus standards. (40 FR 40854, September 4, 1975.) The agency has placed these special responsibilities with the dealer because the dealer frequently is the person in the distribution chain with the best knowledge of how a buyer intends to use a vehicle. In a case where the dealer is uncertain of the buyer's intent, the agency has suggested that the dealer request a written statement of purpose from the buyer. (40 FR 60033, 60034, December 31, 1975.) Of course, a manufacturer who sells a noncomplying vehicle to a school district also violates the Vehicle Safety Act, and is subject to a civil penalty of $1000 for each violation of the Act or regulations issued under it.

Generally under the Vehicle Safety Act, a manufacturer's or seller's certification responsibilities apply up to the vehicle's first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale (in other words, up to the first retail sale of the vehicle). After that first retail sale, Federal responsibilities change. Federal restrictions concerning used vehicles are set out in 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section states 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 or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard...

Section 108 means that none of the identified persons or businesses may remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment or designs that are installed in a school bus in compliance with an applicable Federal safety standard. Note that this prohibition in the Federal law does not prevent the vehicle owner (e.g., a local school system) from itself making modifications to its own vehicles. Again, as with any violation of 108 or regulations issued under it, this agency may seek civil penalties of $1000 per violation.

In your letter, you express concern with the failure of some Virginia school districts either to purchase school buses that comply with Federal safety standards, or to maintain the districts' existing school bus fleet. Please be aware that there is no Federal requirement that school districts either purchase complying vehicles for transporting school students, maintain a bus fleet so that the vehicles continue to comply with Federal safety standards, or otherwise bring a vehicle into compliance with Federal school bus standards. This agency can not regulate the purchase or use of a vehicle, and consequently can not require a school district to purchase or use only those vehicles that comply with the Federal school bus safety standards. These matters are within the authority of the individual State. Under a Federal statute called the Highway Safety Act, NHTSA has issued guidelines that cover a wide range of subjects relative to school bus identification, operation, and maintenance (23 CFR Part 1204, Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17). NHTSA may recommend, but does not require, that an individual State adopt all or part of these guidelines. Therefore, the State of Virginia, not the Federal Government, would impose limitations on the purchase, use, and maintenance of vehicles by a school district, and would determine whether to order a district to remove noncomplying vehicles from its school bus fleet.

You ask for "the precise language" of Federal laws and regulations that apply to school buses. Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 571 contains the Federal safety standards. The following is a list of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that include requirements for new school buses:

Standards No. 101 through 104 (49 CFR 571.101 - 571.104) Standard No. 105 (School buses with hydraulic service brake systems) Standards No. 106 through 108 Standards No. 111 through 113 Standard No. 115 Standard 116 (School buses with hydraulic brake systems) Standard 120 Standard No. 121 (School buses with air brake systems) Standard No. 124 Standards No. 201, 203, and 204 (School buses with a gross vehicle weight rating [GVWR] of 10,000 pounds or less) Standards No. 205, 207, 208, and 210 Standard No. 212 (School buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less) Standard No. 217 Standard No. 219 (School buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less) Standard No. 220 Standard No. 221 (School buses with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds) Standards No. 222, 301, 302.

You may find a copy of 49 CFR at a Federal Depository Library in your State. I enclose a list of those Libraries in Virginia. If you so choose, you may purchase a copy of Title 49 from the United States Printing Office (GPO), Washington, D.C., 20402, (202) 783-3238. The principal Federal statute governing vehicle safety regulation is the Vehicle Safety Act (15 United States Code 1381 et seq.). You may obtain a copy of this and other Federal laws from GPO.

In an undated memorandum you sent to Division Superintendents, you refer to a school bus fleet review, and state that this review includes "cars, vans, activity buses, etc. which are used primarily to transport school pupils." Some of these vehicles were not subject to Federal school bus safety standards, because the vehicles do not fit in the school bus vehicle classification. I must emphasize NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students, and I encourage your school districts to give their most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting students in vehicles that do not comply with these regulations.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Joan Tilghman of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

/ Senator John W. Warner 805 Federal Building 200 Granby Mall Norfolk, VA 23510 ref:VSA#57l d:5/27/88

ID: 86-3.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/27/86 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: R.A. BYNUM -- ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, PUPIL TRANSPORTATION SERVICE, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: This is a response to your letter of January 25, 1988, where you asked this agency to "provide (your Department) with the precise language of the various federal laws and regulations which describes the application and enforcement of the April 1, 1977 school vehicle regulations." You state that Virginia has "agreed to enforce" the Federal school bus regulations by requiring that "all school activity buses purchased, leased or contracted for after January 1, 1985" comply with Federal school bus regulations.

You state that according to your maintenance records for vehicles in the school bus fleet, some "Detroit Line" vans do not comply with Federal regulations, and Virginia may wish to take some action (1) to remove certain "noncomplying" vehicles from the school bus fleet, and (2) to warn dealers and manufacturers against selling noncomplying vehicles to Virginia school divisions. You state that you are concerned with "school activity vehicles which were designed for more than ten passenger capacity," and say that the State of Virginia may order some school districts to remove certain vehicles from service, because they appear not to comply with Federal safety standards for school buses.

As I read your letter and the materials you submit with it, your principal concern seems to be with the compliance requirements for passenger vans with at least 11 designaated seating positions, and used to transport students to and from school-related events. Let me begin by explaining that under Federal regulations, there is no vehicle classification called "van." Instead, a passenger van is classified either as a "multipurpose passenger vehicle" (MPV) or a "bus," depending primarily upon its seating capacity. An MPV is a motor vehicle (1) designed to carry a driver and nine or fewer passengers, (in other words, with not more than 10 designated seating positions), and (2) either constructed on a truck chassis or equipped with features for off-road operation. A bus is a motor vehicle designed to carry a driver and 10 or more passengers. (In other words, a bus has at least 11 designated seating positions.)

If that vehicle with at least 11 designated seating positions also is manufactured and sold to carry school children, then the vehicle is not just a bus, but a school bus. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Vehicle Safety Act) and regulations issued under it, define a school bus in terms of (1) the vehicle's designed capacity for carrying people, and (2) the vehicle's intended use. More specifically, a school bus is a motor vehicle designed for carrying a driver and 10 or more passengers, and sold for transporting students to and from school or school-related events. Please note that a vehicle with at least 11 designated seating positions intended for use in transporting students to school-related activities is a school bus even if the vehicle is not used to transport students to and from school.

Please note further that NHTSA uses its definition of school bus in regulating the manufacture and sale of new vehicles. A new vehicle that meets the definition of a school bus must meet Federal safety standards for school buses. A school bus manufacturer must certify that its vehicle meet all applicable Federal safety standards, and a commercial seller must sell only a complying vehicle as a school bus. In your letter, you state that Virginia may warn some dealers and manufacturers against selling noncomplying vehicles to your school districts. If a dealer has in its inventory, a motor vehicle with at least 11 designated seating positions, and if that vehicle is not certified as complying with all Federal safety standards applicable to a school bus, then in all likelihood, the dealer has violated the Vehicle Safety Act if he sells or has sold a noncomplying vehicle to a Virginia school district.

This is because NHTSA has maintained a long-standing position that if a dealer sells an MPV or bus capable of being converted and used as a school bus to a school or a school bus contract operator, that dealer is responsible for certifying the vehicle's compliance with school bus standards. (40 FR 40854, September 4, 1975.) The agency has placed these special responsibilities with the dealer because the dealer frequently is the person in the distribution chain with the best knowledge of how a buyer intends to use a vehicle. In a case where the dealer is uncertain of the buyer's intent, the agency has suggested that the dealer request a written statement of purpose from the buyer. (40 FR 60033, 60034, December 31, 1975.) Of course, a manufacturer who sells a noncomplying vehicle to a school district also violates the Vehicle Safety Act, and is subject to a civil penalty of $ 1000 for each violation of the Act or regulations issued under it.

Generally under the Vehicle Safety Act, a manufacturer's or seller's certification responsibilities apply up to the vehicle's first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale (in other words, up to the first retail sale of the vehicle). After that first retail sale, Federal responsibilities change. Federal restrictions concerning used vehicles are set out in @ 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section states 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 or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . .

Section 108 means that none of the identified persons or businesses may remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment or designs that are installed in a school bus in compliance with an applicable Federal safety standard. Note that this prohibition in the Federal law does not prevent the vehicle owner (e.g., a local school system) from itself making modifications to its own vehicles. Again, as with any violation of $ 108 or regulations issued under it, this agency may seek civil penalties of $ 1000 per violation.

In your letter, you express concern with the failure of some Virginia school districts either to purchase school buses that comply with Federal safety standards, or to maintain the districts' existing school bus fleet. Please be aware that there is no Federal requirement that school districts either purchase complying vehicles for transporting school students, maintain a bus fleet so that the vehicles continue to comply with Federal safety standards, or otherwise bring a vehicle into compliance with Federal school bus standards. This agency can not regulate the purchase or use of a vehicle, and consequently can not require a school district to purchase or use only those vehicles that comply with the Federal school bus safety standards. These matters are within the authority of the individual State. Under a Federal statute called the Highway Safety Act, NHTSA has issued guidelines that cover a wide range of subjects relative to school bus identification, operation, and maintenance (23 CFR Part 1204, Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17). NHTSA may recommend, but does not require, that an individual State adopt all or part of these guidelines. Therefore, the State of Virginia, not the Federal Government, would impose limitations on the purchase, use, and maintenance of vehicles by a school district, and would determine whether to order a district to remove noncomplying vehicles from its school bus fleet.

You ask for "the precise language" of Federal laws and regulations that apply to school buses. Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 571 contains the Federal safety standards. The following is a list of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that include requirements for new school buses:

Standards No. 101 through 104 (49 CFR @ 571.101 - @ 571.104)

Standard No. 105 (School buses with hydraulic service brake systems)

Standards No. 106 through 108

Standards No. 111 through 113

Standard No. 115

Standard 116 (School buses with hydraulic brake systems)

Standard No. 120

Standard No. 121 (School buses with air brake systems)

Standard No. 124

Standards No. 201, 203, and 204 (School buses with a gross vehicle

weight rating [GVWR] of 10,000 pounds or less)

Standards No. 205, 207, 208, and 210

Standard No. 212 (School buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less)

Standard No. 217

Standard No. 219 (School buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less) Standard No. 220

Standard No. 221 (School buses with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds)

Standards No. 222, 301, 302.

You may find a copy of 49 CFR at a Federal Depository Library in your State. I enclose a list of those Libraries in Virginia. If you so choose, you may purchase a copy of Title 49 from the United States Printing Office (GPO), Washington, D.C., 20402, (202) 783-3238. The principal Federal statute governing vehicle safety regulation is the Vehicle Safety Act (15 United States Code @ 1381 et seq.). You may obtain a copy of this and other Federal laws from GPO.

In an undated memorandum you sent to Division Superintendents, you refer to a school bus fleet review, and state that this review includes "cars, vans, activity buses, etc. which are used primarily to transport school pupils." Some of these vehicles were not subject to Federal school bus vehicle classification. I must emphasize NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students, and I encourage your school districts to give their most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting students in vehicles that do not comply with these regulations.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Joan Tilghman of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: aiam0586

Dear Mr. Frank: Thank you for your letter of December 22, 1971, in which you requeste safety information pertaining to 1964 Chevrolet hood latching mechanisms.; Our Offices of Defects Investigation and Accident Investigation an Data Analysis have made a search of their files, and have found no specific information relating to defects in 1964 Chevrolet hood latching. I should like to point out that, inasmuch as Federal motor vehicle safety standards first became effective on January 1, 1968, we have not in all cases received information pertaining to defects which may have affected earlier vehicles. We have, however, monitored a recall campaign affecting potentially defective hood latch mechanisms on 1969 Mercury Cougars, wherein the possibility of binding components could cause the hood to open while the vehicle is in motion. In this connection, we are enclosing a copy of a report, *Motor Vehicle Safety Defect Recall Campaigns*, covering calendar year 1969. Your attention is invited to page 13 of the report for a brief summary of the action, and to page 1 for instructions for obtaining further detailed information relative to this campaign. We are, of course, continuing to be alert for further problems in this area.; Regarding designs of hood latch systems, we favor the type system yo describe in which two complete operations are necessary before the hood can be opened completely. I am enclosing a copy of Federal Motor Vehicles Safety Standard No. 113, entitled Hood Latch Systems, which has required secondary latch positions or secondary hood latch systems on most vehicles since January 1, 1969.; Thank you for your inquiry. Do not hesitate to contact me if I can b of further assistance.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Acting Associate Administrator, Moto Vehicle Programs;

ID: nht73-1.22

DATE: 09/25/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of July 26 and August 7, 1973, requesting an opinion on the applicability of the emergency exit provisions (S5.3 to S5.5) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, "Bus Window Retention and Release" (49 CFR 571.217), to buses that are of the same design as "school buses," but which are not manufactured (they are not painted yellow, nor do they have warning devices) nor used as school buses. You ask further that the standard exempt prison buses.

We interpret the exemption for school buses to include buses similarly designed, without regard to their intended use. School bus is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 to mean,

"a bus designed primarily to carry children to and from school . . . ."

We are of the opinion that buses which share the same design as buses that clearly fall within the definition of "school bus" are school buses under Standard No. 217, and are therefore exempt from the emergency exit provisions of the standard. No modification of the standard is accordingly called for.

With respect to your request regarding prison buses, we are presently considering similar requests previously received, and plan to respond by notice published in the Federal Register in the near future.

Yours truly,

August 7, 1973

Robert L. Carter Associate Administrator for Vehicles U.S. Department of Transportation

Re: Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217 Bus Window Retention and Release

Thomas Built Buses, Inc., High Point, North Carolina, a manufacturer of school bus bodies, respectfully petitions the Department of Transportation for a revision in wording of said Standard, particularly section S5.2.3 School Buses. We petition that the wording in this section be changed to read as follows: "The emergency exit requirements do not apply to school buses or buses of like design adapted for use for other than transporting children to and from school, but if such buses contain any pushout windows or other emergency exits, these exits shall conform to S5.3 through S5.5."

We base our petition on the fact that we as a body manufacturer do offer our base product design for other uses such as churches, activity buses for schools used for field trips and other school events, Boy Scouts, YMCA's, Salvation Army Clubs, etc. These units are constructed of the same basic design as what is termed a school bus but may vary as to color and omission of specific school bus safety warning systems. Our conclusion is that as the Standard is presently worded, it is a double Standard in that it states the Standard applies not to school buses but to those same buses if used for other than hauling children to and from school. We feel strongly that the Standard should apply to neither school buses or those of like design used by other groups or the Standard should apply to all buses including school buses. Due to the basic design of the product for school use, we are in agreement with the Standard as proposed but suggest the above additions.

In addition to the above, we respectfully submit to the Department of Transportation that prison buses which are vehicles manufactured to haul prisoners from one point to another, should not be included under this Standard. Prison buses should be exempt along with school buses and the others listed. The basis for this petition on prison buses is due to the fact that the Standard contradicts the specific purpose of a prison bus. In other words, prison buses are security vehicles with a minimum of escape possibility whereby the Standard increases escape possibility.

We would respectfully request your expediting a ruling on this petition since all body manufacturers have buses as described in this petition on order to build after September 1, 1973, and the effective date of said Standard is September 1, 1973. If further information is required by you, please advise us immediately.

Respectfully submitted,

James Tydings Chief Engineer

c.c. Berkley Sweet Executive Secretary School Bus Manufacturers Institute 5530 Wisconsin Avenue Washington, D. C. 20015

July 26, 1973

Berkley C. Sweet Truck Body & Equipment Association

Dear Mr. Sweet:

Kindly forward this letter to the Department of Transportation for the purpose of obtaining an interpretation on FMVSS #217 - Bus Window Retention and Release.

We request an interpretation on the definition of "School Bus" as applied to units which we sell to school bus route contractors. Many contractors use their buses for purposes other than just carrying school children. For example, they may carry a Sunday School class to the beach for a weekend. Will the requirement for a minimum number of emergency exits be applicable to a bus used in such a case?

We request that the "designated seating capacity" for a handicapped persons vehicle be taken as the number of wheelchair spaces plus the seated passenger capacity.

Are "School Activity Buses" required to have a minimum number of emergency exits? Such buses are used to carry sports teams to games and classes on field trips. These buses are owned by the schools and used because most states have laws that preclude the use of state owned route buses for such activities.

We request an exemption for buses which are sold to prisons on the basis that we sold less than 100 of them during 1972. We expect to sell approximately 30 such vehicles this year. Also, there is the reason of possible prison escape.

Thanking you in advance for your services, we remain

Very truly yours,

James Tydings Chief Engineer

ID: nht94-1.81

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 16, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Angela R. Caron (Meridian, MS)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/17/93 from Angela R. Caron to Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 9119)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking about the safety of aftermarket belt positioning devices. The devices you ask about alter the positioning of vehicle lap and shoulder belts, for the advertised purposes of improving the fit of the belts on children an d small adults.

Although NHTSA understands your view that safety belts should be comfortable for the wearer, we have significant concerns about aftermarket belt positioning devices. The following discussion explains those concerns and the effect of our regulations on s uch products.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) gives this agency the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. This agency does not have a safety standard that directly applies to belt positioning devices. Our safety standards for "Occupant Crash Protection," (Standard No. 208) and "Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages" (Standard No. 210) apply to new, completed vehicles. In addition, ou r safety standard for "Seat Belt Assemblies" (Standard No. 209) applies to new seat belt assemblies. Because a belt positioning device is neither installed as part of a completed vehicle nor as part of a seat belt assembly, none of these regulations app ly to belt positioning devices.

While none of these standards applies to a belt positioning device, the manufacturer of the product is subject to the requirements of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. To date, ther e have been no defect proceedings concerning these products. In addition, while it is unlikely that a belt positioning device would be installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, the Safety Act prohibits those busi nesses from installing the device if the installation "rendered inoperative" compliance with any safety standard.

Belt positioning devices raise safety concerns you should consider in deciding whether to use these products. These devices could be used in a way that significantly affects crash forces on the occupant. Standard No. 208 includes requirements that have the effect of ensuring that the lap and shoulder belts distribute the crash forces to the occupant's skeletal structure, a part of the body that can better withstand the forces. For example, Standard No. 208 requires the shoulder belt and the lap belt to intersect off of the abdominal area. A device that moved that intersection from the side to the middle of the abdomen could greatly increase the loading on the occupant's abdomen. An increase in abdominal loading could have serious safety implications for the wearer of the belt.

There are other concerns about these devices. The realigning of the shoulder belt could increase the likelihood that the wearer would twist toward the middle of the vehicle in a crash, so that the person could be partially or completely unrestrained by the shoulder belt. In addition, if the device introduced excessive slack into the belt system, the occupant's head would be more likely to contact the vehicle interior. Also, slack in the belt system generally introduces higher crash forces, which incr ease the risk of injury. We urge you to consider these factors when deciding whether to use a belt positioning device, or the manner in which to use one.

You also asked whether a "travel vest" can be used with your two and a half year old son, in place of a child seat. The travel vest is a "child restraint system" and is thus subject to our safety standard for child restraints (Standard No. 213). The ma nufacturer of the travel vest (which the standard refers to as a "harness") is responsible for determining the conformance of the vest to the requirements of Standard No. 213, and certifying that the vest so conforms. This agency periodically tests prod ucts for compliance with Standard No. 213. When properly used, harnesses that comply with Standard 213 provide good protection in a crash, similar to that provided by child seats. You should always follow the manufacturer's instructions for using the c hild restraint system, including the specifications for the weight of the child for whom the restraint is recommended.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Mary Versailles of my staff at (202) 366-2992.